F... gas prices

FRPLG

Good point. I guess we should forget drilling in ANWR because it will run it too.

steveo395

Drilling offshore in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the Bakken oil field in Montana and North Dakota, the 1.5 trillion barrels of oil shale under Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The technology to extract the oil from the shale has improved greatly, so we can get that oil if we really need it.

What do you suggest we do about our huge oil problem? I know that you probably want to find alternative energy sources, but we need a lot more time to develop them. This will buy us that time.

__________________

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Did you mean to imply that ANWR is our current emergency/strategic reserve? If so, ANWR is pretty crappy strategic reserve. I'm no oilman, but I think it's safe to say that it would take months or even years to set up rigs and pipelines for us to start getting oil from ANWR. So, if you're concerned about having an emergency/strategic reserve, don't you think we should get moving on drilling in ANWR asap? Currently, ANWR isn't a resource we can rely on to effectively deal with crises.

saden1

Umm, why aren't the energy companies drilling these supposed bountiful locations in the Atlantic and Pacific? And why aren't they investing in drilling these oil shells? Maybe the government should be helping them out? Get real, if it's clean and viable you bet your ass it would be happening right now. Oil companies are happy where they are and could care less about the environment.

Massive government funded, academia centered research into alternative fuel (water based solution in particular). Real investment in mass transit.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Daseal

Exactly, if we just get more oil, it won't solve any issues. We'll continue to put big oil in charge of finding alternative energy sources (Hell, they might have an engine that runs on water, but they would never tell us -- they're looking for energy they can charge a high premium for.). Go to MIT, give them a boat ton of money, and we'll have ideas within years.

__________________
Best. Player. Available.

mooby

Yeah, while I don't know much about the oil industry and how to solve the problems facing us, I agree that we shouldn't be putting the oil companies in charge of finding alternative solutions to oil. It needs to be put in the hands of companies that would actually benefit from finding alternate solutions, oil companies would rather keep getting paid than find a better solution.

steveo395

They're not drilling there because the government won't let them.
They are investing in oil shale.
Why would oil companies want to stay where they are when there is more oil for them to drill, thus allowing them to make more money.

This is going to raise taxes a lot when we're in a recession... not a smart move. The government is already doing some investing and so is the private sector. Just give it time and there will be a viable solution. Mass transit is never going to work here as well as it does in Europe. Our country is totally different. Everything is a lot farther apart and there are a lot less cities.

__________________

Daseal

steveo -- Mass transit will never be as effective as Europe, no doubt. However, it could be far more efficient in urban areas.

__________________
Best. Player. Available.

FRPLG

Anyone who thinks we are ever getting off of oil without the oil companies actually leading the charge is fooling themselves. The best way to get off of oil is to make it worth the oil companies time and efforts and ultimately lead to more profit for them.

Plain and simple, oil companies have more resources to make this happen than anyone else. They just need the motivation. Removing OPEC from the equation(finding alternate sources of oil (ANWR, deep gulf drilling and oil shale) clears a major hurdle in creating a truer free market in the oil industry (OPEC is a cartel. It is the exact opposite of a free market entity). Once that happens then the market forces will start to churn and we will get the most effective and efficient transition to new energy. It may take a while but it wont bankrupt our country, is completely feasible and probably represents our best chance at an effective transition. A transition that leaves us our place in the world economy and maintains our standard of living.

We need to start getting serious with mandating alternate fule vehicles. Within a reasonable, but aggressive timeframe we need to have an achievable goal percentage-wise for alternate fuel vehicles. I'd say 20% new cars sold in 10 years can be done. This stimulates a new energy market which will have somewhat less barriers to entry increasing competition and spurring innvoation. At the same time we need to offer some type of serious tax incentive for oil companies. I know it sounds like more of the same but in the end IT HAS TO BE PROFITABLE for oil companies to do this. Some type of structured tax incentive that dies away over 30 years will be enough time-wise and incentive-wise to build a new architecture and create a more complete transition.

If we force big oil to do this by creating a super competitive market we will be better off as a country in so many ways.

Daseal

FRPLG -- I disagree. Cpayne and I talked about this earlier. What source of energy is our best bet? Hyrdrogen. Oil companies will struggle mightily to make much in the way of profits off of hydrogen. Why would the oil companies ever go after that, it would kill their business. It has to go through academia as a previous poster said, they aren't in it for money, they're in it to find a solution.

__________________
Best. Player. Available.

That Guy

well, nuclear is the cheapest and greenest energy out there, but it won't fuel cars (besides electrics and those batteries aren't any greener than a hummer, BUT at least it could weaken oil prices some).

bio-diesel is nice and all (and way more efficient than ethanol), but once you make it a mass commodity, it's price structure just isn't going to work well compared to right now where you can get it for almost nothing (if you know a mcdonald's manager).

sugar cane based fuel is also much more efficient than corn based fuel where applicable, so ending corn subsidies and expanding sugar cane production can even help a little (and sugar is healthier than corn syrup anyways, and could be cheaper if corn wasn't subsidized like it is now)

__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

JoeRedskin

IMHO, I am neither “naïve or utterly stupid” and I believe that, in fact, the only way to fix our problem is to rely on a properly regulated “free market” and that to assert otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history, the realities of market economics involving a finite resource and confuses 1st grade economics with modern free market economics. Also, your assumption requires market collusion by several competitors to “corner the market” and act as one unit. This is, of course, antithetical to even the most basic free market principles and is one of the reasons/needs for government regulation of the market.

First to clarify, under pure market economics with no government regulation, I would agree that oil companies will exploit the current structural need for oil until such time as there is not a penny of profit to be made. Again, IMHO, while an example of otherwise acceptable market economics, this delay is unnecessary and hurtful to both our long term national security and to the environment. Additionally, their ability to do so is the direct result of an artificially created structural benefit.

Big Oil’s ability to exploit the current structural need is a direct result of our society’s decision to spend money (and blood) to create an infrastructure that made their product profitable (For example, the revamping of America’s highway structure in the 1950’s to create the Interstate system). In doing so, we as a society created an infrastructure that, initially anyway, artificially increased demand and created an oil intensive economy. Further, we have limited supply by restricting drilling in many offshore sights and by heavily regulating the product and, thus, limiting the ability of smaller companies to compete with “Big Oil”.

Because we, through our government’s actions, assisted in the creation and support of Big Oil’s market, it is appropriate that we, through government, assist those who wish to compete with that market. In doing so, however, the appropriate response is not to “socialize” big oil or artificially cap its profits. Rather, it is to offer start up protection by providing a similar type of artificial demand that was provided Big Oil. (For example, offer a government contracts to zero-emission vehicles that can perform up to certain standards (i.e. The feds will replace all federal transportation (with certain national security caveats) with a ZEV that can travel at speeds of 75 mph and has a range of 300 miles).

Essentially, government can, and in my opionion should, find ways to create and protect the necessary incentive for alternative energy until such time as alternative energy forms are profitable on a stand alone basis.

Ultimately, however, Big Oil itself would have to switch its product base or go out of business. Big Oil could, through collusion, use the current economic/structural need for oil in a manner to delay the switch to alternative forms of energy for a considerable time. They would be able to do so b/c even though oil is expensive now, it is not prohibitively so and there is enough profit being made to divert some of the profit to lobbying and/or inhibiting ventures “Microsoft Style”. Unlike tech innovations & Microsoft, however, oil is a finite resource. At some point, the market will actually not support the added costs necessary to “crush” the competition and ventures will begin to succeed b/c oil will simply not be able to supply the demand at an efficient cost. I don’t care how many start ups you crush – and even with the built in competitive advantage of the country’s current infrastructure, oil will price itself out of the market. Far sighted oil execs will see this and have income alternatives ready or they will simply go out of business. Essentially, while it might kill the goose that laid the golden egg – I doubt they would do so without another goose lined up.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

JoeRedskin

Guess I should read your posts before going off on my own rants. Well said.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?