Comments on: Breaking Our Dependance on Natural Gas

By: 0e9fa1f3e9

0e9fa1f3e9 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:57:38 +0000

5335
Everybody is looking for Free Sex.

Find your free sex Porn Downloads here.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Mon, 01 May 2006 05:43:29 +0000

The democrats may be pushing alternative fuel cars, but now that people are actually driving them (and hybrids) what are Democrat-controlled states doing? California and Oregon, for example, are considering adding a miles-driven tax on cars because more economical cars are reducing their gas-tax revenues. As a bonus, the freedom-loving Democrats want to implement this tax by putting GPS on all cars. Odometer tampering being illegal and all, you would think it sufficient to read the odometer during those state’s mandatory emissions inspections. Apparently, knowing exactly where and when you drive is important in determing your tax.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:19:13 +0000

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

By: Dairenn Lombard

Dairenn Lombard — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:44:23 +0000

Glad to see SOMEONE tell the truth about ANWR drilling–that the “pristine” wildlife refuge IS 200 miles away from the basically uninhabitable wasteland where the great reserves we need are located.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:45:19 +0000

My comment about ANWR was meant to illustrate that the reserves there are merely a drop in the proverbial bucket to our daily energy needs. Thus, the hoopla about what it might contain apropos petroleum isn’t warranted. Having worked at Prudhoe Bay, I can say that it’s possible to drill in ANWR without a large environmental effect. I say this, admittedly, being pretty staunchly pro-environment on a lot of things. Extra care does need to be taken though as it is a pretty important wetlands area (what Gary refers to, disparagingly, as a ’swamp’). With proper oversight (assuming the state of AK does it’s job….) I think this can be done. Do I advocate higher gas prices? From the personal point of view, obviously not (duh!). I actually think we’re just playing ‘catch-up’ with the actual market price of gas, rather than the artifically low price we’ve paid for years. Do I advocate giving oil companies subsidies to extract oil from public land? No. I think have more than enough money for exploration/development without throwing more of our money at them. Do I advocate the feds being more proactive about raising mileage requirements on vehicles? Yes, I do. Anyone who reads enough will know that people don’t always make rational economic choices, and they rarely, if ever, make economic choices that are good for the nation as a whole (and it’s future). Thus, in this case, I think there is a rational case for the Feds to impose standards that will aid us in conservation, even if it means you’ll really have to pay through the nose to drive that Hummer if you want to.

By: simon

simon — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:59:22 +0000

Oil and Gas is not going to last that long. ANWR will mearly be a stop gap measure. The world needs to move beyond oil and gas and look at alternatives. It is the only way to get energy security.

Also conservation is vital. America and Europe has pretty much the same standard of living yet Europe use half the amount of fuel. One of the main reasons is the engine sizes of American cars.

Also I friend of mine was over in Arizona in a room that was quiet warm and the heating was on. Now instead of turning off the heat the guy turn on the air conditioning. That sound crazy to me and when my friend questio ned the guy he saw nothing wrong with it.

If you think $3 per Gallon is bad. It is about â‚¬1.20 a litre in Ireland which is about $6 a gallon. This is due to tax on oil over here.

As for the Kennedy’s objecting. Tell him where to go.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:07 +0000

In Matthew’s comment, he continues to raise the canard that ANWR would “hardly last that long at our current rate of consumption.” That’s true if we supplied all of our petroleum needs from ANWR. However, no one has proposed that except for the libs who are adamant that no drilling occur in ANWR. Based on current EIA data, we import 10% of our petroleum from Saudi Arabia. What would happen if that were replaced with domestic production? We would be in a much stronger negotiating position in the Middle East if we could show that we could live without their oil.

Granted, it would take a long time to bring ANWR online. In the meanwhile, how about if some environmental processes were relaxed so that additional refinery capacity could be brought on line? How about if air quality standards could be relaxed to that the requirement for “boutique” gasolines could go away?

Don’t get me wrong. At $3 per gallon, I’m driving less and driving easier when I have to. Is Matthew arguing for even higher gas prices in order to reach his desired end?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:13:58 +0000

It’s hard to know where to being with the mis-information and bluster in this that you’re trying to pass off as ‘analysis’ so I’ll let that slide (if you think I’m not qualified to comment on such things, I used to work for a large oil company and have a background in geophysics). In any event, what’s not been said is that economists and analysts across the board (even from the Cato and Heritage Institutes) agree that being ‘energy independent’ is simply not doable, you would basically kill the US economy. The demand for oil and natural gas in this country simply far outstrips our known supplies, and that’s today. It would take years to develop a field like ANWR and even then it would hardly last that long at our current rate of consumption. Most natural gas reserves are in places like Russia and the Middle East (we get a fair bit of ours from Canada). The best, most immediate thing we can do is conservation. In a way, that’s happening now because gas prices are encouraging people to drive less. In that vein, I think we can agree that higher taxes are not necessary or desireable since that money would basically go down some black hole, never to be seen again (a Republican black hole or a Democratic one, take your pick). If I do blame ‘the government’ (meaning both parties) it’s that they haven’t done enough to avert the problem by enforcing energy standards for vehicles (2/3 of our oil consuption is for transportation needs … so talk about things like nuclear reactors and wind farms is a bit of a canard). However, if we find ourselves in this situation, our government is only partly to blame. Most of it lies with ourselves: our perceived ‘need’ to own gas-sucking trucks and the need to heat a 4000 square foot home etc etc.

NB: Fuel oil is not natural gas. Thus, ANWR natural gas doesn’t really affect them. If you just want to have a rant about Ted Kennedy and Masschusetts then just write a separate column. ;-)

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:07:04 +0000

Great post. Keep hammering away on this topic.