[osv_alero]

During the presidential debate Senator Obama brought up the 86 million acres that oil companies have available to drill.

If they converted that 86 million acres (not saying we should, just IF), to Algae Ethanol plants, that would produce 680 to 2,720 billion gallons of fuel each year.

To put that in perspective:
The US uses 185 billion gallons a year.
Converting the land to Algae Ethanol would leave us with a net 495 to 2,535 billion gallons of fuel.
It would take only 3,558,750 to 14,235,000 acres to produce enough fuel for 1 year.

Don't forget; with Algae Ethanol there is no need to worry about CO2 as the Algae eats more than the car that uses it will put out.

My questions:
1. WHY ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME & ENVIRONMENT DRILLING!
2. WHY ARE WE GIVING MONEY TO OIL COMPANIES?

 

[FStephenMasek]

Please do not also forget that algae ethanol is not proven. There is lots of talk, but lets see high volume production before we make plans for using it.

 

[2002 Caddy]

They could do the same thing with the "parking lot" that sadly most of the New Orleans suburbs remain... Its a wet hot spot... Perfect for sugar cane production... and Ethanol from cane which is proven and does work.

I could write pages as to how this would turn Louisiana into the richest state in the union and how all of the plant and infrastructure are already there.

It just takes the will of the people.

 

[Quickening]

There are tons of places you could put Algea conversion plants, and still drill where the oil is. We aren't getting out of this problem by just choosing one. We need to be drilling, we need wind, solar, nuclear and all sorts of energy conversion plants, such as algae ethanol.

And the idea of hurting the environment, specifically about ANWR. I think .001 or .01% of Americans visit the area. Its not pretty, its barren tundra. And the concerns of wildlife, where we have drilled and put in large pipelines, the Caribou population has grown.

 

[2648562]

We need to forget about what's best for Exxon Mobil. And worry more about this country's long term stability--save what we have for when we need it.

 

[osv_alero]

We need to forget about what's best for Exxon Mobil. And worry more about this country's long term stability--save what we have for when we need it.

My point exactly. By building plants that provide alternative fuel we can reduce our need of the oil we do have and hold off on drilling until . . .?

Cellulosic Ethanol is proven and is capable of replacing 25% of our oil needs. Once again: Why waste energy, the environment and our resources on drilling when we have better solutions? The same goes for nuclear power. We have shown that it is not needed in the Northwest, where it is currently illegal to build such a plant. What is wrong with the rest of the country? If we "Hippies" can figure it out, why can't everyone else? Oh yeah, someone might loose a billion or so, like Chevron, Exxon or McBush.

 

[member12]

Sugar based ethanol and cellulosic ethanol are more productive, but states that produce that are not Iowa, which is a big primary state and a swing state. Bad commitments were made by our government to get that vote.



If there were half the incentives to get sugar to ethanol plants up and running, we could have E85 in every pump within a few years. Sugar based ethanol makes since. They just need a kick start.

Instead, we get protectionist policies for the southern sugar cane growers, including a price floor and a ban on imports.


But drilling for oil isn't a waste of time or money. It needs to be done now. It will create jobs, lower fuel cost, and limit our need for imports.

 

[osv_alero]

But drilling for oil isn't a waste of time or money. It needs to be done now. It will create jobs, lower fuel cost, and limit our need for imports.

It has been noted that drilling will only produce 1% of our countries oil needs. Cellulosic Ethanol production using municipal trash can replace 25% of our gasoline needs.

Drilling for oil would increase our CO2 output.
Cellulosic Ethanol would reduce it.

Drilling for oil would take 10 years.
Cellulosic Ethanol can be done in less than 7.

Cellulosic Ethanol would create thousands of jobs and allow fuel to become a local product verses one that is shipped from thousands of miles away.

Once again: Drilling for oil is not the answer, either short term or long term. The oil companies have 68,000,000 acres left to drill from. As I tell my kids; You need to eat what you have before you scoop more on your plate.

 

[psece]

How do you know that there is oil anywhere near those 86 million acres. There is a reason why those 86 million acres is open to oil exploration: There is no oil there....

Secondly, a majority of those acres are ocean.

And they know where the oil is. That was part of the strategic oil reserves: Knowing where the oil is in the first place.

 

[psece]

It has been noted that drilling will only produce 1% of our countries oil needs. Cellulosic Ethanol production using municipal trash can replace 25% of our gasoline needs.

Drilling for oil would increase our CO2 output.
Cellulosic Ethanol would reduce it.

Drilling for oil would take 10 years.
Cellulosic Ethanol can be done in less than 7.

Cellulosic Ethanol would create thousands of jobs and allow fuel to become a local product verses one that is shipped from thousands of miles away.

Once again: Drilling for oil is not the answer, either short term or long term. The oil companies have 68,000,000 acres left to drill from. As I tell my kids; You need to eat what you have before you scoop more on your plate.

Drilling for oil will take 10 years but all of Kuwait's destroyed oil infrastructure was recreated in less than 5 years. I guess they can drill better in Kuwait.

We need to do it all(Drilling, bio gas/oil of any form) until our consumption changes to use more electricity. There isn't one perfect solution.

 

[Ed Arcuri]

I can understand the frustration with energy prices and even understand concern over other things with which I disagree: man made "global warming" now called "climate change" by those who want to sell the myth.
What I don't understand is why people do not inquire about the claims that are made.
Item: Most - roughly >85% - of all the known oil reserves in the world are owned by governments - not oil companies.
Coca Cola makes more profit - about twice as much - on its revenues as ExxonMobil. When was the last time any of these mountebanks in Congress summoned soda pop executives to answer for their profits?
Why don't we want to oil companies to make money? In a free market, profit informs capital on which places to invest. More capital means more financial resources to find and provide more energy. Do you prefer to work for less, rather than more, all other things being equal? Nor do I. It's just common sense.
The 86 million acres to which some politicians refer are acres under which there is no oil, or oil exploration will be done as soon as the lawsuits filed by those same politicians' political supporters are final, or exploration is being done - the lawsuits having been settled. The politicians are trying to create the misimpression that "big oil" is refusing to pump oil from known reserves. It's a lie.
Oil companies do not receive subsidies in the usual sense. Oil (and, indeed, any commodity produced by mining, pumping, etc. - extraction industries) is taxed in fairly complicated ways. Some believe that, unless all of the oil companies' revenues are confiscated, that that constitutes a subsidy. All of us will likely support a fair tax rate and appropriate revenue sharing with the states in which the extraction takes place. We should use the language properly in order to avoid fixing the wrong problem.
Cheers,
Ed Arcuri
Loophole: someone else's tax deduction

 

[Michael_S]

Coca Cola makes more profit - about twice as much - on its revenues as ExxonMobil. When was the last time any of these mountebanks in Congress summoned soda pop executives to answer for their profits?
Why don't we want to oil companies to make money? In a free market, profit informs capital on which places to invest. More capital means more financial resources to find and provide more energy. Do you prefer to work for less, rather than more, all other things being equal? Nor do I. It's just common sense.

People don't need Coca Cola to get to work. If Coke raises the price, all of the groceries and most of the shipped goods in the country don't also increase in price due to higher shipping costs.

If Coke stopped selling its product tomorrow, the economy would continue without a problem.

If the oil companies stopped selling their products tomorrow, the United States would become a third world country.

The 86 million acres to which some politicians refer are acres under which there is no oil, or oil exploration will be done as soon as the lawsuits filed by those same politicians' political supporters are final, or exploration is being done - the lawsuits having been settled. The politicians are trying to create the misimpression that "big oil" is refusing to pump oil from known reserves. It's a lie.
Oil companies do not receive subsidies in the usual sense. Oil (and, indeed, any commodity produced by mining, pumping, etc. - extraction industries) is taxed in fairly complicated ways. Some believe that, unless all of the oil companies' revenues are confiscated, that that constitutes a subsidy. All of us will likely support a fair tax rate and appropriate revenue sharing with the states in which the extraction takes place. We should use the language properly in order to avoid fixing the wrong problem.
Cheers,
Ed Arcuri
Loophole: someone else's tax deduction

Using a company's tax and their profits to measure how fair or unfair they are treated is grossly inaccurate.

I have friends who work at major pharmaceutical companies. Their profit margin is officially 4%, so it sounds like they're having a rough time and shouldn't be taxed hard.

At these pharmaceutical companies: there are free gourmet restaurants in the building, daycare on site, an indoor pool, a gym, and a full time staff of massage therapists. The executives have memberships to prestigious golf resorts where they hold major meetings. The employees fly first class all over the country and use limousines instead of rental cars when on business trips. The company cars are Mercedes and BMWs. The typical employee works a 30 hour week.

So the pharmaceutical company spends billions of dollars per year on luxuries as part of their expenses so that their profit margin looks like a reasonable 4%. If they spent money like a more conservative company, their profit margin would be dramatically higher.

The oil companies are doing substantial fractions of a trillion dollars in business per year. I highly doubt their official 'expense' listings are indicative of careful, conservative spending. The janitors probably commute in Aston Martins.

 

[Michael_S]

Drilling for oil will take 10 years but all of Kuwait's destroyed oil infrastructure was recreated in less than 5 years. I guess they can drill better in Kuwait.

We need to do it all(Drilling, bio gas/oil of any form) until our consumption changes to use more electricity. There isn't one perfect solution.

To be fair, as far as I know Kuwait's oil isn't largely under water. Some of the known reserves here are under water.

I think there are two sides to energy independence: political and economic security, and environmental concerns. If the environment deteriorates, we may have serious problems 10, 20, or 100 years from now. If the price of oil hits $300 per barrel and stays there, the US is all but destroyed right now.

I think a multi-pronged approach is essential. Renewable fuels are the ultimate goal, because they're carbon neutral and renewable - very little net damage to the environment, and we never run out. But we can't get to energy independence quickly with only renewable technology. We have to do everything we can to get independent, and then work on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in a cost efficient way.
1. There is some belief that the oil futures trading has some illegal components to it that has artificially increased prices above the natural supply and demand curve. This needs to be researched. If it turns out that the actual price of oil is still realistically $50 per barrel, we can really hurt our economy by spending billions of private and public money on alternative fuels that can't compete with that price.
2. Increase drilling here. You can't offset billions of barrels of oil imports right away.
3. Increase refinery capacity here. We need more refineries.
4. Invest in cars that run on natural gas. We have lots of natural gas reserves.
5. Increase natural gas production.
6. Continued alternative fuel research. HoosierRon has linked to dozens of companies trying to mass produce different alternative fuels. We only need one of those companies to succeed at developing cheap mass production technology, and we have the future.
7. More investment in windmills, solar, tidal, and nuclear power for electricity.
8. More investment in battery technology for electrical cars.

 

[HoosierRon]

There is only one person who can Lead us past this addiction to oil. Our Leader has a plan to take us to an age of clean, renewable energy that does not take from some and give to others.

Our Leader has the answer.

 

[psece]

To be fair, as far as I know Kuwait's oil isn't largely under water. Some of the known reserves here are under water.

I think there are two sides to energy independence: political and economic security, and environmental concerns. If the environment deteriorates, we may have serious problems 10, 20, or 100 years from now. If the price of oil hits $300 per barrel and stays there, the US is all but destroyed right now.

I think a multi-pronged approach is essential. Renewable fuels are the ultimate goal, because they're carbon neutral and renewable - very little net damage to the environment, and we never run out. But we can't get to energy independence quickly with only renewable technology. We have to do everything we can to get independent, and then work on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in a cost efficient way.
1. There is some belief that the oil futures trading has some illegal components to it that has artificially increased prices above the natural supply and demand curve. This needs to be researched. If it turns out that the actual price of oil is still realistically $50 per barrel, we can really hurt our economy by spending billions of private and public money on alternative fuels that can't compete with that price.
2. Increase drilling here. You can't offset billions of barrels of oil imports right away.
3. Increase refinery capacity here. We need more refineries.
4. Invest in cars that run on natural gas. We have lots of natural gas reserves.
5. Increase natural gas production.
6. Continued alternative fuel research. HoosierRon has linked to dozens of companies trying to mass produce different alternative fuels. We only need one of those companies to succeed at developing cheap mass production technology, and we have the future.
7. More investment in windmills, solar, tidal, and nuclear power for electricity.
8. More investment in battery technology for electrical cars.

Agree 110%. We need to stop sending almost a Trillion dollars of power overseas just for gas. If that money stayed here, 30% would be taxed right away from the Feds and the states. And when part of that is to pay Americans for work it is even more money in the coffers.

 

[Ed Arcuri]

Michael S
I'm not at all sure that we don't agree, given your other posts.
I don't know if you missed the point or if you were kidding. It isn't always possible to tell in these typed exchanges as there is no inflection.
The Coca Cola point is this: many of those who seem to think that there is a great conspiracy to rip us off complain about profit margins. That is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) Neither a soda company nor an oil company provides their product to us because we need it. They provide it because they can make a profit. 2) Profit margins do not derive from conspiracies (except, of course, in criminal conspiracies) but from providing a product at a price which people are willing to pay that is greater than the cost of producing it. People pay much more per gallon for soda than they do for gasoline. They are willing to do so. They are angry at the price of gas for a reason you cited tangentially: they believe they are entitled to the gasoline because they have come to depend on it.
Perhaps they are dependent. I would certainly say so. The laws of economics do not include an escape clause for dependency, however. If we want to solve the problem of high cost, we must define the problem properly. If it suits a person to yell at the oil companies, fine. They might as well howl at the moon. It won't solve the problem.
Know this about my perspective: taxes are for the purpose of providing the government with revenue for its legitimate purposes. Taxes are not for the purpose of punishing people who have or use their money differently from me.
Finally, your thought that perhaps some businesses don't engage in "careful, conservative spending" and, therefore report lesser earnings is certainly correct. It reflects an IRS code that wouldn't fit in an airplane hanger. We certainly need a simpler system and one that properly defines what constitutes legitimate expenses used to produce income distinguishing them from perks.
Cheers,
Ed Arcuri

 

[Michael_S]

Ed Arcuri,

I don't have a problem with oil companies making a profit.

But I think comparing them to Coke is useful in some ways but not useful in others. Coke does not effectively have the US economy by the balls. The oil companies do - our economy absolutely, positively must have their product to survive.

So that changes how we have to deal with the oil industry versus how we deal with other industries.

 

[tamatt27]

There is only one person who can Lead us past this addiction to oil. Our Leader has a plan to take us to an age of clean, renewable energy that does not take from some and give to others.

Our Leader has the answer.

Haha, that reminds me of The Simpsons episode when they were all brainwashed. "The Leader splashed mud on me! I feel so blessed."

 

[Wolfman01]

Drilling for oil will take 10 years but all of Kuwait's destroyed oil infrastructure was recreated in less than 5 years. I guess they can drill better in Kuwait.

We need to do it all(Drilling, bio gas/oil of any form) until our consumption changes to use more electricity. There isn't one perfect solution.

The 10 year claim is a strawman argument derived from a worst case scenario for a few of the more difficult areas of interest. The REALITY is that most of the areas of interest can be up and running in full production within 2 to 5 years of being opened up for development. The anti energy lobby doesn't want you to know this, and they keep it well under wraps during their "we cannot do anything because it's gonna take too long" BS argument.

 

[member12]

There is only one person who can Lead us past this addiction to oil. Our Leader has a plan to take us to an age of clean, renewable energy that does not take from some and give to others.

Our Leader has the answer.

Write in Member12 on your ballot Nov 4th.......