A Serious Energy Conversation/ Realistic Goals

[Koolblue13]

Can we just cut all this Bull crap? I am sick of hearing about all these unrealistic plans to patch up our energy situation. Nukes? In 2030? You have got to be kidding me. With the technology we have today, we can find a better plan.

I've brought this up in several threads lately and nobody has shot it down. Why can my crazy ass come up with an actual realistic plan and neither leading candidate can? Why is the American population still confused about how to get off foreign oil? Why are we not demanding a realistic change and sitting on our hands?

And the people claiming high gas prices are a Good thing? Are you freaking nuts? How will everybody having less money help a single thing?

If we are the greatest Nation, why are countries like Brazil and Iceland doing a better job becoming independent of energy? This kills me.

My plan.

We drill in the Dakotas and refine there too. Now we have cheap oil, that is being made into fuel here. No shipping, no OPEC, much, much less pollution. It's one globe after all. Fuel prices drop immensely and we all have money. Not to mention the jobs created.

Hypothetically, gas will be as cheap as it is in every other Nation who delivers on their own, let's say one dollar a gallon. We charge $2 a gallon and the other dollar goes into reinvestments into natural energy R&D.

Now, the companies who are sold the rights to drill and refine can have the cost to build and pump the oil figured out and paid for. What ever their profits would have been if they were to operate without domestic drilling and refining would be guaranteed, so they get their money, no harm, no foul and they are set.

Now the same companies will be rewarded the first crack at the R&D dollars to invest in the Alt energies under the premise of oil not being used in 10 years, just like the incandescent light bulb, gone or at least reduced to a novelty item, for old car enthusiasts and whatever.

The only way will ever get to build better alt energy devises is if we build some to start with and improve upon the in the first place.

Now that ball is rolling. We have every energy company in the world, scrambling to be the most efficient deliverer on alt energy to the largest consuming Nation around.

Instead of putting penalties on all of these companies, we give tax breaks. Hire Americans, American owned and operated, tax breaks. Build a clean refinery, tax break. Reward instead of penalize these companies and they should push that way even more. Make it a bonus to hire Americans, give a tax break for numbers insured. Make it a bonus to keep your company based in America, where the work is being done.

Bring jobs home, get off the oil being sold to us by the same people who attacked us, reward companies who work in and for Americans exclusively and cut out the bull crap.

Now I know my plan needs work, but in theory, I have no idea why this wasn't done years ago. We could burn mountains of coal we have just sitting around today and drastically reduce our dependence tomorrow.

[Teller]

Using our own natural resources??? Are you kidding me???

No self-respecting democrat will ever stand for that. I'm not even going to get started on tax breaks for corporations that are making a profit. :laugh:

[Koolblue13]

Using our own natural resources??? Are you kidding me???

No self-respecting democrat will ever stand for that. I'm not even going to get started on tax breaks for corporations that are making a profit. :laugh:

What is wrong with that if they are keeping jobs here. Now we give away to the one who leave. It's backwards.

If the oil prices on domestic oil is capped and anything over said cost is put into AE R&D, then the tax breaks will only motivate these companies to hire and employ Americans, work clean and it will further push our economy up where it should be.

[Prosperity]

I guess conserving energy is no part of this conversation... I mean that's why people like me think a rise in gas prices will eventually help our energy situation. Conservation is important, if we use less there will be more... K.I.S.S.

Secondly, other countries have better developed alt energy industries than we do... it would be foolish to try to gain energy "independence" by relying solely on American companies.

[Larry]

I've brought this up in several threads lately and nobody has shot it down.

However, people have asked you to support your claims. Which you have ignored.

We drill in the Dakotas and refine there too. Now we have cheap oil, that is being made into fuel here. No shipping, no OPEC, much, much less pollution. It's one globe after all. Fuel prices drop immensely and we all have money. Not to mention the jobs created.

The Dakotas are oil shale, right? As in, it has to be mined, not drilled, and then separated from the rock, using technology we don't have yet? And when we, someday, do have this technology, it will contribute what percentage of our annual consumption?

And you claim this will happen "immediately"?

Hypothetically, gas will be as cheap as it is in every other Nation who delivers on their own, let's say one dollar a gallon.

Hypothetically, if we had the ability to get gasoline out of the Dakotas for $1 a gallon, then we would have started doing so the instant gasoline went above $1 a gallon.

(Continuing to read.)

[Larry]

I'm not even going to get started on tax breaks for corporations that are making a profit. :laugh:

You're a good man, HH.

Good man always knows his limitations.

[mikered30]

Can we just cut all this Bull crap? I am sick of hearing about all these unrealistic plans to patch up our energy situation. Nukes? In 2030? You have got to be kidding me. With the technology we have today, we can find a better plan.

I've brought this up in several threads lately and nobody has shot it down. Why can my crazy ass come up with an actual realistic plan and neither leading candidate can? Why is the American population still confused about how to get off foreign oil? Why are we not demanding a realistic change and sitting on our hands?

And the people claiming high gas prices are a Good thing? Are you freaking nuts? How will everybody having less money help a single thing?

If we are the greatest Nation, why are countries like Brazil and Iceland doing a better job becoming independent of energy? This kills me.

My plan.

We drill in the Dakotas and refine there too. Now we have cheap oil, that is being made into fuel here. No shipping, no OPEC, much, much less pollution. It's one globe after all. Fuel prices drop immensely and we all have money. Not to mention the jobs created.

Hypothetically, gas will be as cheap as it is in every other Nation who delivers on their own, let's say one dollar a gallon. We charge $2 a gallon and the other dollar goes into reinvestments into natural energy R&D.

Now, the companies who are sold the rights to drill and refine can have the cost to build and pump the oil figured out and paid for. What ever their profits would have been if they were to operate without domestic drilling and refining would be guaranteed, so they get their money, no harm, no foul and they are set.

Now the same companies will be rewarded the first crack at the R&D dollars to invest in the Alt energies under the premise of oil not being used in 10 years, just like the incandescent light bulb, gone or at least reduced to a novelty item, for old car enthusiasts and whatever.

The only way will ever get to build better alt energy devises is if we build some to start with and improve upon the in the first place.

Now that ball is rolling. We have every energy company in the world, scrambling to be the most efficient deliverer on alt energy to the largest consuming Nation around.

Instead of putting penalties on all of these companies, we give tax breaks. Hire Americans, American owned and operated, tax breaks. Build a clean refinery, tax break. Reward instead of penalize these companies and they should push that way even more. Make it a bonus to hire Americans, give a tax break for numbers insured. Make it a bonus to keep your company based in America, where the work is being done.

Bring jobs home, get off the oil being sold to us by the same people who attacked us, reward companies who work in and for Americans exclusively and cut out the bull crap.

Now I know my plan needs work, but in theory, I have no idea why this wasn't done years ago. We could burn mountains of coal we have just sitting around today and drastically reduce our dependence tomorrow.

If we drill in the Dakotas, OPEC will drop their output to even it up. It would take years until we see the first drop of gas in our tanks if we started drilling now in the Dakotas.

[Teller]

You're a good man, HH.

Good man always knows his limitations.

Mmm...Not so fast.

What do corporations do with their taxes? They pass them on to the consumer. Ergo, the dem proposal to place ridiculous taxes on "windfall" profits was not a good one. And my point...well...has at least SOME validity, despite its tongueincheekitiveness.

[Koolblue13]

I guess conserving energy is no part of this conversation... I mean that's why people like me think a rise in gas prices will eventually help our energy situation. Conservation is important, if we use less there will be more... K.I.S.S.

I agree with that. Conservation is a great thing. I do my best. CFLs, Solar lights, car pool, heat with wood. But Forced conservation isn't going to work in a positive manner. If the limits are set for manufacturers to produce like they are with the light bulb, it will happen anyway.

If we were to set a year by which no more oil burners were allowed to be made here or imported and give tax breaks to those who leave less of a carbon foot print, conservation will happen.

Secondly, other countries have better developed alt energy industries than we do... it would be foolish to try to gain energy "independence" by relying solely on American companies.

What would stop foreign companies from establishing companies here and becoming American companies?

We are the top consumer, why would our needs go ignored. People move here now because of opportunity, why would that change if we create more jobs?

[Koolblue13]

However, people have asked you to support your claims. Which you have ignored.

Which claim do you want "supported", I'll do my best.

The Dakotas are oil shale, right? As in, it has to be mined, not drilled, and then separated from the rock, using technology we don't have yet? And when we, someday, do have this technology, it will contribute what percentage of our annual consumption?

According to the Bakken foundation, that tech is already available and people are willing to throw millions of dollars at it to get it rolling.

And you claim this will happen "immediately"?

No, nothing is immediate. But we could reduce our foreign consumption, by offsetting industry and our largest need, home heating and cooling, right away with Coal to get us where we need to go. That would be a start.

Hypothetically, if we had the ability to get gasoline out of the Dakotas for $1 a gallon, then we would have started doing so the instant gasoline went above $1 a gallon.

(Continuing to read.)

Are you implying refining and drilling here wouldn't provide the same footing as the other nations who drill and refine in their own countries? I do believe they pay cents for gas and not dollars.

[Koolblue13]

If we drill in the Dakotas, OPEC will drop their output to even it up. It would take years until we see the first drop of gas in our tanks if we started drilling now in the Dakotas.

True, but we could prepare for it. Like I said, off set some of our consumption with coal to get us through and use our reserves for some of the gas.

Gas isn't going to be cheaper in 10 years from now if we continue down the same road.

Using Nuke plants will reduce our dependence, do you think they will up the cost for us anyway or do we get a pass for that.

[twa]

Just to clarify we are already drilling in the Dakotas(Baken formation) and it is oil (light sweet crude,not oil shale)

The major oil shale deposits are near the Rockies

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html

There is a need for more than the Baken or even Thunderhorse(ultra-deep gulf) will likely provide (as other deposits decline)

My suggestion is using funds from new leases to fund alt energy research/development programs and reward(prizes) new technology.

The best place(and largest deposits of oil and natural gas) would be in the eastern gulf,but I am certainly open to other areas.

[IHOPSkins]

Near Term....political pressure on producers, foreign and domestic (not very optimistic)

Middle Term...Nuke Plants, Renewable (and more expensive) alternative fuels

Long Term.....R/D

All the above requires Governmental Will (vision?) and the Publics support

Hard to fight Profit and the Establishment

[Larry]

Mmm...Not so fast.

No, no, no.

The line is "Now, I know what you're thinking."

What do corporations do with their taxes? They pass them on to the consumer. Ergo, the dem proposal to place ridiculous taxes on "windfall" profits was not a good one. And my point...well...has at least SOME validity, despite its tongueincheekitiveness.

And by that same line of (bogus) reasoning, I can claim that I, personally, am the only person on Earth who pays taxes, because everybody else on Earth simply passes their taxes along.

[Koolblue13]

Just to clarify we are already drilling in the Dakotas(Baken formation) and it is oil (light sweet crude,not oil shale)

The major oil shale deposits are near the Rockies

My suggestion is using funds from new leases to fund alt energy research/development programs and reward(prizes) new technology.

The best place(and largest deposits of oil and natural gas) would be in the eastern gulf,but I am certainly open to other areas.

Thanks for the help.

I'm still in need of holes in my logic.

[Koolblue13]

All the above requires Governmental Will (vision?) and the Publics support

Hard to fight Profit and the Establishment

All that's needed is the public to begin holding our Government accountable for their lack of vision and start demanding answers for our future.

This is on each and every one of US.

[Larry]

Are you implying refining and drilling here wouldn't provide the same footing as the other nations who drill and refine in their own countries? I do believe they pay cents for gas and not dollars.

Are you implying that Exxon has had the ability to produce all the gasoline they wanted, at $1 a gallon, for the last 10 years, but they haven't done so because they like paying billions to Saudi Arabia instead of pocketing the money themselves?

[Koolblue13]

Are you implying that Exxon has had the ability to produce all the gasoline they wanted, at $1 a gallon, for the last 10 years, but they haven't done so because they like paying billions to Saudi Arabia instead of pocketing the money themselves?

So why, if the tech is there and the oil is there and we are already drilling it, why would it be so expensive?

Would refining it here be more expensive?

Would drilling it here be more expensive than buying it?

[Johnny Punani]

From what I know, the largest deposits of coal are in Wyoming and West Virginia. The largest deposits of oil shale are in inner mountain west (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, etc). Currently, the coal to oil liquidification process is in its infancy right now and would take several years of development to produce large amounts. Oil shale is even more under developed then coal liquidification There are significant problems with extraction and processing of the shale into oil. Oil shale has no oil in it but a substance that is a precursor to crude oil. It needs to be processed into crude then into other fuels.

Both coal liquidification and oil shale are several years away from being able to need the US energy needs on a large scale. However, once that happens the United States has the largest and highest quality deposits of Coal and Oil shale on the Earth. IF we can develop the technology to process coal and oil shale into liquid fuel effeciantly and on a large scale we would become the biggest energy producer on Earth by a huge margin.

On a side note: Coal to oil liquidification produces diesel/jet fuel products the easiest. So, I would expect if it does become widely produced; diesel/jet fuel would be produced from coal alone.

For consumption how about we reduce the speed limit back down to 55? That would cut consumption very quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

Coal and oil shale should be used in the short term to off set high energy prices with most of the profits/taxes being invested in a hydrogen based energy infrastructure for the mid-long term (10-20+ years).

[Bang]

Are you implying that Exxon has had the ability to produce all the gasoline they wanted, at $1 a gallon, for the last 10 years, but they haven't done so because they like paying billions to Saudi Arabia instead of pocketing the money themselves?

Somehow I don't think Exxon is hurting either way.

Record profits every quarter, why should they change?

~Bang

[Teller]

And by that same line of (bogus) reasoning, I can claim that I, personally, am the only person on Earth who pays taxes, because everybody else on Earth simply passes their taxes along.

I think you absolutely could make the argument that the consumer foots the majority of the bill for corporate taxes. What's bogus about that? We're where it stops because there's no one else to pass them on to. (Or trust me, I would.)

[Larry]

Somehow I don't think Exxon is hurting either way.

Record profits every quarter, why should they change?

~Bang

He's claiming that we could be producing all the gasoline we need, right now, in the Dakotas, for $1 a gallon (Retail price).

That means that Exxon could be selling their gas for $4 a gallon, selling 100% of the total gasoline in the US, and making a profit of $3 a gallon.

The first site I checked says that '07 gasoline consumption in the US was 388M gallons a day.

Therefore, he's claiming that Exxon could, right now, be making a profit of $1.2B a day. (While simultaneously cornering 100% of the US market.)

If I'm reading their chart on Yahoo correctly, then after taxes they made $10B last year.

Yep, you're right. Why would Exxon want to increase their corporate profits by 35 times (while cornering 100% of the US market for gasoline)?

Obviously we'll need the government to give them some tax breaks to entice them to do this. (Since there's no motive for them to do so without government money.)

-----

Yes, I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'll freely admit that, when you're the most profitable business in the history of the world, you don't necessarily have a strong motive to go out and risk it all on a gamble, somewhere. Ten billion dollars is one heck of a reason to say "it ain't broke".

OTOH, I have to also point out that IMO, there's something wrong with the reasoning that "the government needs to be throwing huge piles of money at an industry that was the most profitable business in the world, for the last 10 years running, because gee, there's just no motive for people to be working in it without a subsidy".

To me, you need to subsidize businesses that aren't profitable (but you think will become so.)

And I'm pointing out that the prediction of $1 a gallon gas, all we want, from one oil field in the Dakotas is impossible to believe. If it were possible, we'd already be doing it. The reason we aren't doing it is because it costs more than $1 a gallon.

(Now, if he wants to claim that pulling oil out of the Dakotas costs two dollars a gallon, then his claim is at least not impossible. Gas hasn't been above $2 a gallon that long, so therefore it's conceivable that the profit motive was sufficient for private enterprise to head there on their own, a couple of years ago, and we just haven't felt the effects yet. But gas has been above a dollar for 20 years. (Maybe 30). Therefore, if the Dakotas were capable of "selling" us gasoline for a dollar, we'd already be buying it there.)

[Koolblue13]

Larry, I was using $1 as a hypothetical, I never said we could be doing it today and I was using the Dakotas as an example of where we could get domestic oil from.

Why pick those couple of things and harp on them, when you could just add to the conversation.

[Larry]

Larry, I was using $1 as a hypothetical, I never said we could be doing it today and I was using the Dakotas as an example of where we could get domestic oil from.

Why pick those couple of things and harp on them, when you could just add to the conversation.

1) I have a problem with the approach of "The way to treat the US oil addiction is to give the patient more oil."

IMO, there aren't any "more drilling" approaches that will produce any effects at all within 10 years.

And in 10 years, we can have nuclear, instead. So why do the "drill now, and do nuclear later"?

And, IMO, if we can have 10 reactors on-line in 10 years, then we can have 30 in 10 years. All it takes is spending money three times as fast. (It's not quite that simple, but almost. If Bob the Builder can build a house in a month, then he can't necessarily build two houses a month, because he may not have enough employees. But he can hire the employees in a month. If he has the contracts in hand, then a month from now, he'll have the ability to build two houses a month.)

2) And, IMO, I keep hearing completely bogus numbers being thrown around by the people who's energy plan is "throw tax money at an oil industry that's already making record profits, anyway, to "encourage" then to do something that's already profitable, so we can keep doing the same thing that got us here in the first place".

The numbers I've seen from ANWR, for example, predict that it'll take 10 years before we get a drop of oil from there, and that when it hits peak production, 20 years from now, it will be supplying 1-2% of our oil needs. And yet people keep claiming that ANWR is a solution? (Some of them refer to it as a short-term solution?)

ANWR won't even prevent the price of gasoline from going up.

Now, yeah, if somebody can show me some honest estimates that say that if we drill here, then 10 years from now it can be supplying 10% of our national consumption, then I'd say that sounds like a good idea. 10% of our needs isn't a miracle cure-all, but it isn't chicken feed, either. And 10% of our total needs means we can reduce imports by 20% (since we currently import about half of our needs.) A 20% reduction in imports wouldn't hurt our balance of trade, either. And while 10 years isn't tomorrow, I don't see any other solutions that take less than 10 years, either. So 10 years is about as close to a "quick fix" as we're gonna get.

[Koolblue13]

I am not looking for a quick fix, I'm looking for a way to just fix it. We have the tools to help us now and we aren't using them and I can't understand why. If China can drill off our shores, why can't we. If we have the oil under our land, why aren't we allowed to use it.

As far as nuclear goes, when Yucca fills up, where do we put the waste? Do you have an idea how to get rid of it, because as far as I know, the moon seems like the safest spot and that doesn't jive well with me.

And I was hoping somebody could help with some numbers, but if the costs to drill and refine the oil we have here are close to the costs we buy it for, why wouldn't that make sense to do? How would that not be more cost effective for the companies involved?