With regards to offshore and other drilling

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by ccurrins

So, it will not matter WHO gets elected President, the oil companies can, and will, do what ever the f##k they want.

Yes.

It's called "Free Trade". Not a perfect system, but way better than any other that has been tried in history. State run economies just don't work. Everyone has to compete for the same thing.

They are privately owned companies. Surely you do not want them nationalized, like in Venesula or Russia or Saudi Arabia. Just what we need, the government trying to run the oil companies.

Look. When you have problems with oil, you ask the experts. OIL COMPANIES. The government, and certainly not Congress, knows nothing about oil. Heck, they can't even balance their checkbooks.

Same thing with medical care. Same thing with education. Do you really want the government running these things? Do you really want people who know next to nothing about economics to determine the economic future of your family?

Your error is in beleiving what these guys tell you.

Look, gasoline is a finished product. The raw material for gasoline (and for fuel oil, diesel, plastics and petrochemicals, heck, for all organic chemistry!) is oil.

When the price of the raw material goes up, the price of the finished product also goes up.

The price of oil, from the suppliers (which is not so much, the U.S., and definately not the U.S. oil companies, but suppliers in Canada (where most of the U.S. imported oil comes from) The middle east, Africa, Russia, etc) goes up. It is a WORLD MARKET where all the oil companies compete to but the raw material supply. Besides that, for the oil supply in the U.S., the oil companies (which are also the suppliers, in this case) must also pay the government royalties and leases for the land where they get the oil. If China or India are willing to pay more to the suppliers, then the U.S. must also pay more to get the same amount.

So, the oil companies, in the U.S., pay the government a royalty on the raw material AND pay taxes to the government on the finished product. Did you know that the oil company profits, big as they are, recently, are only about 1/2 what the government taxes paid are?

Seem to me that the government has added to the price, not worked to make it lower.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Yes. They are privately owned companies. Surely you do not want them nationalized, like in Venesula or Russia or Saudi Arabia. Just what we need, the government trying to run the oil companies.

Look. When you have problems with oil, you ask the experts. OIL COMPANIES. The government, and certainly not Congress, knows nothing about oil. Heck, they can't even balance their checkbooks.

Same thing with medical care. Same thing with education. Do you really want the government running these things? Do you really want people who know next to nothing about economics to determine the economic future of your family?

Right, I don't want our Government controlling any big businesses.

My response was to other comments where some think if Obama gets elected he won't force them to drill and if McCain gets elected he will.

Hence, they (Big Oil) will do what they want.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by ccurrins

Right, I don't want our Government controlling any big businesses.

My response was to other comments where some think if Obama gets elected he won't force them to drill and if McCain gets elected he will.

Hence, they (Big Oil) will do what they want.

Define what you mean by Big Oil.

What most U.S. oil companies want is a bigger supply, the supply to be domestic (from here, in the U.S.) and that will make the extraction less expensive, the oil won't have the added cost of long distance shipping and it will be (mostly) be consumed domestically because of that.

Big oil also wants to drill in areas where the most oil is. Less expensive to tap a large field (off shore or in ANWAR) than it is to tap many small fields.

Big oil also wants to build more refineries, and more modern refineries, so that they can process more oil and more efficiently.

Obama is against these things. He has stated that he thinks that the higher prices are a good thing because it will force people to move off oil and onto "alternatives". Until recently (when public opinion turned on him) he was against all offshore drilling. Now, he says that he is for "safe" drilling. Thgis means he wants to keep all the excessive government "safety" restrictions.

Sure, it will take 10 years to make new off shore rigs productive, but he doesn't tell you that most of that 10 years (like about 8 1/2) will be taken up with the government restrictions.

Read between the lines and use your "crap detector" whenever a politician speaks.

[Christopher Currins]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Define what you mean by Big Oil.

What most U.S. oil companies want is a bigger supply, the supply to be domestic (from here, in the U.S.) and that will make the extraction less expensive, the oil won't have the added cost of long distance shipping and it will be (mostly) be consumed domestically because of that.

Big oil also wants to drill in areas where the most oil is. Less expensive to tap a large field (off shore or in ANWAR) than it is to tap many small fields.

Big oil also wants to build more refineries, and more modern refineries, so that they can process more oil and more efficiently.

Obama is against these things. He has stated that he thinks that the higher prices are a good thing because it will force people to move off oil and onto "alternatives". Until recently (when public opinion turned on him) he was against all offshore drilling. Now, he says that he is for "safe" drilling. Thgis means he wants to keep all the excessive government "safety" restrictions.

Sure, it will take 10 years to make new off shore rigs productive, but he doesn't tell you that most of that 10 years (like about 8 1/2) will be taken up with the government restrictions.

Read between the lines and use your "crap detector" whenever a politician speaks.

I guess I mean the same as you, Big Oil = The Oil Companies.

Read post 39. Apparently they're not in too big of hurry to drill, build, or even maintain their existing refineries.

[relliott]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Bob,

You know me. And you know that I am not ideology driven.

It's not that I need and opinion and that I get it from the conservative "cabal". It's that I read, inform myself and make up my own mind, then I find out that the conservative position is in keeping with my own.

If you are looking for lock-step, ideology driven thinking, well, that is pretty much one of the definitions of socialism (giving up individual freedom and ideas for the good of the collective).

Funny how leftists continue to project their methodology, critically, onto conservatives.

In any case, here are some facts:

1) If President Clinton had not vetoed drilling in ANWAR (which was twice approved by Congress) we would not have the oil problem we have now (at least in part. The biggest reason seems to be the uncertainty of the supply from the Middle East. The U.S. only gets 13% or our oil from there, but oil is now such a commodity that a decrease in supply, anywhere, affects prices anywhere.)

2) If the "Bambiologists" had not scared (and lawsuited) the Nuclear industry (BTW, Bob, Nuclear plants have been around, commercially, since the 60s. Dresenn, down by Morris, IL, is the oldest one in the U.S., and the first commercial plant. Nukes use "fission", which is not new.) we would have many more nukes and get most of our electrical energy from them. That dang "China Syndrome" movie, by Ms. Fonda, scared the heck out of the public, even though it was full of lies and innacuracies. The U.S. Navy runs some 480, very high efficiency plants, high performance plants, much more complex than most commercial plants, and has had no problems. There have been nuke plans in Navy ships since the late 1950s, and on Carriers since the 60s.

3) I played around with photovoltaic panels in high school (early 70s) and since then, their efficiency has only grown by about 35%. To run a typical house, totally on solar cells, you would need to cover an area, with cells, about 3 times the total square footage of the house, use special 12 volt lighting and have storage batteries about the size of a hummer (for night). Such a system would add about $40,000 to the cost of the house, not to mention having to have two electrical systems (12 and 120 volt). We are talking almost 40 years of research and this is as far as they have come. I do not think it is logical to simply assume that some sort of technological break through will just magically happen.

4) One reallt promising technology, and a proven one, is tidal hydroelectric. It is in very extensive usage in Holland, Belgium and other countries with large estuaries. It has been tried in the U.S., but no one wants to invest in it (not a lot of payback) and the government has not subsidized it like the Europeans have (They are socialist, we are free market).

5) WInd, likewise, has been around for a long time. But, the amount of power produced by each turbine is low. There is also a large need for storage batteries. Lithium battery technology has improved, and will probably get better, but there is a cost involved.

6) It is very telling to see who is financially involved with the various schemes that are now being offered. Gore stands to make a LOT of money by selling carbon futures, if the cap and trade law passes (BTW: This law would mean that if you used more energy (carbon footprint) than the powers that be (leftist bambiologists) allow you, you would have to pay a big tax. Most HIs have trucks and drive them alot. Think about it). Pelosi stands to make a lot from Mr. Pickin's scheme. And, she is in a position to make natural gas powered cars, used by the federal government, manditory. Mr. Pickin's other company has the most natural gas to sell. BTW: Mr. Pickins is also working hard to get a law passed, in California, granting big government subsidies to wind and natural gas producers, like him.

7) Fusion power is not yet there, but could be if more money was put into it. The big efforts on fusion stopped when the dept of energy chose to go the laser fusion route, rather than the magnetic bottle (Tokomak) method. Laser fusion got all the funding (and it was, really, just a way of developing high energy laser technology outside of the Defense dept budget). The big problem with laser fusion is the conversion of the energy to electricity, which is not a problem with the tokomak method.

I would urge everyone to check out the history, and the technology, behind these arguements. I am sure that you will find it very interesting and telling. I find, every day, these politicians pronouncing, as fact, stuff that is just plain not true. And their lap dogs in the msm just, uncritically, eat it up and never bother to check it out, like reporters used to do.

Hope this helps;

Great answers Will, but....

If Nuke plants are the answer than Illinois is in front of the pack with the number of facilities located here.

Why do we also have , last I read the second highest electric utility rates in the country? (after Mass)

Makes me wonder why they claim it to be such a cost effect way of producing power when it costs us so much more.

As far as safety goes , putting plants in more and more areas does increase serious risks of disaster from earthquakes and terrorism admit it or not , though if no other solution is found they may be our only alternative.