PDA

View Full Version : So, are you against drilling for oil in Alaska's ANWR region or not?


mlyonsd
03-14-2005, 01:45 PM
Alaska Oil Drilling Taps Into Political Fight
Sunday, March 13, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif
KAKTOVIC, Alaska During winter, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a white and freezing expanse. In summer, it's green and spectacular. Regardless of the time of year, it's a piece of land at the center of a hot debate.

Five U.S. senators and two Cabinet secretaries flew to the top of the world recently to explore the impact and potential of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, otherwise known as ANWR (search (javascript:siteSearch('ANWR');)).
Some Alaskans rolled out the un-welcome mat. "We want you to go home. We don't want oil development," demonstrators told the officials upon their arrival.

But the protesters are actually a minority. Roughly three-out-of-four Alaskans and local natives in Kaktovic support the drilling, as do all of the Republicans who went on the tour. Democrats who planned to take part backed out because of pressure from their party's leadership, some on the trip said.

"I think you really have to see it for yourself to appreciate the vastness and to appreciate the technology and the land," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (search (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. Lisa Murkowski');)), R-Alaska.
Added Interior Secretary Gale Norton (search (javascript:siteSearch('Gale Norton');)): "When you look at ANWR, in comparison to our resources elsewhere in the country, this is clearly the largest untapped sourced of oil based on what we know today."
ANWR contains between 5 and 16 billion barrels of oil, according to government figures. At peak production, it could yield more than 1 million barrels per day nearly as much as the United States imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined.
Eight months a year, ANRW's coastal plain is covered in ice. Thanks to "directional drilling," which can sink as many as 50 wells from a single 10-acre site, no platform will be anywhere near some spectacular mountains, proponents of the plan argue.
ANWR represents a small portion of Alaska and the oil exploration area is even smaller. Drilling pads total 2,000 acres, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge.
Last Stand for Environment or First Step to Energy Independence?
Today, ANWR is as much a symbol as it is a place. To environmentalists, it is a last stand and the first step toward an alternative energy economy. To supporters, it is the most logical, sensible thing to do to reduce our dependence on unstable foreign countries.
The Gwich'in Indians, who live near the refuge, are concerned that drilling for ANWR's oil will hurt migrating caribou.

"We have always been caretakers of the porcupine caribou herd because they have always taken care of us and we take care of them," said Lucy Sweet of the Gwinch'in Indian Nation (search (javascript:siteSearch('Gwinch'in Indian Nation');)).
But experience suggests a different story. Since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay began pumping oil 30 years ago, the caribou herd there has grown from 3,000 to 36,000 animals.

"We need exploration development for our economy," said Richard Glenn, a Kaktovic resident. "We don't have forests, we don't have agriculture, we barely have tourism and so this is our only economy."
Party Divide Over ANWR Issue
Republicans prefer to see ANWR this time of year when it looks like flat, frozen tundra miserable for people but not bad for oil drilling. Democrats prefer summer, when the area becomes a magnet for wildlife.
"Oil drilling and wildlife they just don't go together," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (search (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. Barbara Boxer');)), D-Calif., who has so far successfully led the fight to stop drilling there.
But supporters of ANWR drilling insist Alaska's natural beauty is safe.
"The risks are going to be minimal, if any, and America stands to gain enormously," said Republican Sen. Pete Dominici (search (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. Pete Dominici');)) of New Mexico.

But a new balance of power on Capitol Hill means the next vote on the issue may be different. Domenici says his party has the votes to push the legislation through.
"I think the prospects are pretty hopeful that we'll be able to get something passed in this session," added Sen. John Thune (search (javascript:siteSearch('Sen. John Thune');)), R-S.D.

In the November elections, supporters of oil development gained four votes in the Senate, giving Republicans a two-vote edge 51 to 49, which is all that's needed as long as the ANWR measure is attached to a budget resolution. Sources told FOX News that two more Republican moderates may be willing to support ANWR; debate could come as early as next week.

From a historical perspective, it was Democratic President Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress who set aside more than 1 million acres of ANWR for oil exploration in 1980.

Donger
03-14-2005, 01:47 PM
No. Drill that f*cker.

NOW.

DanT
03-14-2005, 01:54 PM
They need to drill it at some point, that's for sure. Humans are capable of coming up with smart solutions. This isn't an either/or situation where the only choices are between drilling for oil and respecting the environment.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 01:54 PM
No. Drill that f*cker.

NOW.

I concur.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 01:56 PM
I don't know how they are going to get it done, though, since the libs in congress won't even let them do another survey to see how much oil might be there. They block it every time it comes up for a vote.

mlyonsd
03-14-2005, 01:57 PM
To me, if the people in Alaska want it to happen Senators from other states should butt out.

Iowanian
03-14-2005, 01:57 PM
Drill it, don't spill it.

I could really give a rats ass if a penguin has an oilwell for a perch if it helps alleviate the price fluctuations of oil. Put some wood duck boxes on the rigs and tell the hippys to shut up.

I can't wait for the day that US scientists invent some fuel source that gives us the ability to tell OPEC to Suk ahr Baows.

Now...I don't want those greasy Alaskans getting any more loot either. They're already drawing funds yearly

Donger
03-14-2005, 01:59 PM
They need to drill it at some point, that's for sure. Humans are capable of coming up with smart solutions. This isn't an either/or situation where the only choices are between drilling for oil and respecting the environment.

I feel the same way about nuclear power. And removing all the red tape surrounding the construction of refineries. IIRC, the last petroleum refinery built in our country was in 1978.

That's a REALLY bad idea, IMO.

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 10:48 PM
The thing that I just don't get about ANWR is that the area that they want to drill (with that side-drilling technology) is such a small area of such a small area. Someone on the news this past weekend said that the drilling area represents the same amount of space as a newspaper on a football field.

Also, the claims that it would hurt caribou and other species isn't borne out by the evidence. Other pipeline/refinary operations in Alaska have resulted in those populations GROWING. Evidently the critters dig the heat from the pipelines or something.

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 10:49 PM
I feel the same way about nuclear power. And removing all the red tape surrounding the construction of refineries. IIRC, the last petroleum refinery built in our country was in 1978.

That's a REALLY bad idea, IMO.

I'm also a big fan of alternative fuels. But until they can be practically deployed on a wide-scale at the same cost I think we should use what we got. I'm all for emergency refining of coal. Put them all on the east coast and let the smoke choke the Europeans.

Joe Seahawk
03-14-2005, 10:51 PM
My brother works in Prudhoe Bay and he tells the pipeline has actually increased wildlife in the area.. He said the freakin meese errr, Mooses(?) :) hang out by the pipeline to keep warm..

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:02 PM
I can't wait for the day that US scientists invent some fuel source that gives us the ability to tell OPEC to Suk ahr Baows.




Put your money where your mouth is. Tell Johnny Cameljockey to take a flying leap and start using Biodeisel.


http://www.biodiesel.org/


Or you can continue to fund them. It's up to you.

Taco John
03-14-2005, 11:07 PM
The thing that I just don't get about ANWR is that the area that they want to drill (with that side-drilling technology) is such a small area of such a small area. Someone on the news this past weekend said that the drilling area represents the same amount of space as a newspaper on a football field.

Also, the claims that it would hurt caribou and other species isn't borne out by the evidence. Other pipeline/refinary operations in Alaska have resulted in those populations GROWING. Evidently the critters dig the heat from the pipelines or something.



My only problem with drilling in Alaska is that it could be nothing more than putting a bandaid on a slit throat. I'd rather see money invested in getting the transportation industry converted to Biodeisel, and giving American farmers a new cash crop.

I think our money is better invested in transitioning to a new paradigm than wasted on the old one.

Whatever happened to the American ideal of progress?

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 11:50 PM
My only problem with drilling in Alaska is that it could be nothing more than putting a bandaid on a slit throat. I'd rather see money invested in getting the transportation industry converted to Biodeisel, and giving American farmers a new cash crop.

I think our money is better invested in transitioning to a new paradigm than wasted on the old one.

Whatever happened to the American ideal of progress?

If they can offset the price difference then I'm all for doing it in the shipping sector. Got to believe they'd be able to.

But I'd also drill at the same time. Saying it won't help when we could get nearly the same amount out of ANWR that we get from Saudi Arabia is tough to buy.

But at the end of the day we do need to upgrade. I just hope the new "cars of the future" don't look all sissy-like with big round edges and fins and stupid panels over the tires.

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 11:52 PM
I just hope the new "cars of the future" don't look all sissy-like with big round edges and fins and stupid panels over the tires.
ROFL

Iowanian
03-14-2005, 11:54 PM
Put your money where your mouth is. Tell Johnny Cameljockey to take a flying leap and start using Biodeisel.


http://www.biodiesel.org/


Or you can continue to fund them. It's up to you.

Oh now Taco........I'm a big supporter of bio/soydiesel.

The problem with your support of it is that alot of the development, and available product(soybeans, hi-oil Corn etc) have come from some of those Pesky Ag-Farmer "welfare" programs you're always bitching about.

I'd love nothing more than to be able to fill up on some kind of Bio-fuel, made from a product grown in Iowa. There has even been talk of economic rejuvenation of my home area with a biodeisel plant.

As for my money and my mouth........I can't tell you the last time one of our vehicles wasn't filled with a 10% ethynol Blend gas.

SBK
03-15-2005, 12:10 AM
Oh now Taco........I'm a big supporter of bio/soydiesel.

The problem with your support of it is that alot of the development, and available product(soybeans, hi-oil Corn etc) have come from some of those Pesky Ag-Farmer "welfare" programs you're always bitching about.

I'd love nothing more than to be able to fill up on some kind of Bio-fuel, made from a product grown in Iowa. There has even been talk of economic rejuvenation of my home area with a biodeisel plant.

As for my money and my mouth........I can't tell you the last time one of our vehicles wasn't filled with a 10% ethynol Blend gas.

Me too, ethanol is the bomb. I don't know why they don't offer it anywhere else but here. :thumb:

Taco John
03-15-2005, 12:10 AM
You're mixing progress and farm welfare as my concerns. I have no problem with investing money into the future. My problem is when we waste money to prop up the past. If the government isn't going to protect Ma and Pa kettle from going bankrupt when Walmart moves in, I don't see why they should move in to prop up an outdated farming paradigm. I don't believe that government should be in the business of "protecting ways of life." Ways of life should live or die based on their own viability in society.

It's good to hear that they are talking about biodeisel in your area. I think it could prove to be a huge boon for the heartland of America.

Loki
03-15-2005, 12:53 AM
yes, but do it RIGHT.

survey it right
build it right
and plenty of routine maintenance on the pipeline.

in the meantime, working on alternate fuel sources (that removes
our dependancies on OPEC) is just as good if not better than drilling
domestically.

Mark M
03-15-2005, 07:42 AM
This wouldn't be an issue if oil companies and car makers would work harder on alternative energy sources.

Sales of the Prius and other low-emissions vehicles prove that consumers are extremely interested in them.

But until then, I think safe, responsible, CAREFUL drilling in a very limited and controlled area would reduce some dependence on foreign sources.

MM
~~:shrug:

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 07:53 AM
This wouldn't be an issue if oil companies and car makers would work harder on alternative energy sources.

Sales of the Prius and other low-emissions vehicles prove that consumers are extremely interested in them.

But until then, I think safe, responsible, CAREFUL drilling in a very limited and controlled area would reduce some dependence on foreign sources.

MM
~~:shrug:

The Prius is an itty bitty thing with 100 horsepower. WTF is gonna buy that? And yet some do.

They are coming otu with a new Highlander (SUV) with 270 HP and it's a hybrid. Let's see how that sells and then start moving towards MANDATORY use of hybrid vehicles at some point in the future.

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 07:56 AM
Instead of coming up with that crazy mission to Mars idea I wish Bush instead had proposed creating and promoting an alternative fuel source for at least 50% of all the cars on American roads by the year 2015. Challenge the country to it just like Kennedy did in the early 60's with the moon shots.

I think the timing would have been perfect and the country would have bought into it rather easily. Easier then say, private SS accounts.

NewChief
03-15-2005, 07:57 AM
Instead of coming up with that crazy mission to Mars idea I wish Bush instead had proposed creating and promoting an alternative fuel source for at least 50% of all the cars on American roads by the year 2015. Challenge the country to it just like Kennedy did in the early 60's with the moon shots.

I think the timing would have been perfect and the country would have bought into it rather easily.

:clap:

I totally agree.

Boozer
03-15-2005, 08:01 AM
Instead of coming up with that crazy mission to Mars idea I wish Bush instead had proposed creating and promoting an alternative fuel source for at least 50% of all the cars on American roads by the year 2015. Challenge the country to it just like Kennedy did in the early 60's with the moon shots.

I think the timing would have been perfect and the country would have bought into it rather easily. Easier then say, private SS accounts.

Bush isn't as stupid as some of us make him out to be. He knows who butters his bread; that's why you didn't see him make that proposal.

Mark M
03-15-2005, 08:04 AM
The Prius is an itty bitty thing with 100 horsepower. WTF is gonna buy that? And yet some do.
But somehow they're sold out until 2006.

They are coming otu with a new Highlander (SUV) with 270 HP and it's a hybrid. Let's see how that sells and then start moving towards MANDATORY use of hybrid vehicles at some point in the future.

Don't forget the Ford Escape hybrid, which already had preorders here in KC to such a level that you can barely find them ... and the Accord hybrid with 260HP that is coming out ... and the Civic hybrid which I've seen everywhere ... and the Chevy 1/2 ton hybrid that'll be on the market soon.

Damn near every hybrid that's been on the market has sold very, very well. Sure, there's a few exceptions (like that butt-ugly Honda 2-seater that no one really wanted) but the car-makers argument that no one will buy them is a crock of shit. People DO want them.

Frankly, I don't see why car-makers and oil companies don't try harder for, say, hydrogen powered cars. Once the technology is refined and the stations in place, the cost of providing it has GOT to be cheaper. I mean, it's freaking hydrogen ... one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.

MM
~~:shrug:

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 08:06 AM
Bush isn't as stupid as some of us make him out to be. He knows who butters his bread; that's why you didn't see him make that proposal.

IMO if the oil companyies would buy into the idea and take the lead in production and distribution they could make cajillions.

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:07 AM
Instead of coming up with that crazy mission to Mars idea I wish Bush instead had proposed creating and promoting an alternative fuel source for at least 50% of all the cars on American roads by the year 2015. Challenge the country to it just like Kennedy did in the early 60's with the moon shots.


Let's just say that THIS administration has NO motivation to head in that particular direction.

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 08:08 AM
Let's just say that THIS administration has NO motivation to head in that particular direction.

I understand that and it disappoints me.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:13 AM
Bush isn't as stupid as some of us make him out to be. He knows who butters his bread; that's why you didn't see him make that proposal.

You are probably right, but if he really wanted a legacy....and a justification to use ANWAR as a stop gap measure, while we fully explore alternative fuels in a much more serious way....he IS a lame duck. What the hell?

Now that would be "smart." :hmmm:

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:14 AM
IMO if the oil companyies would buy into the idea and take the lead in production and distribution they could make cajillions.

No, they don't and can't, really.

They have hundreds of billions of dollars (probably more like trillions) invested in doing ONE thing -- and that's taking advantage of petroleum and all its byproducts. Pumping it, shipping it, refining it, and delivering it to your local gas station, with whom they also have relationships.

Alternatives to that are neither within their areas of expertise, nor are they able to maintain anywhere near the same profit margin.

So instead they will resist to the very end to save their revenues and profits. You can't blame them for it, but we need to ignore it and do what's best for the country, not what's best for the oil giants.

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:18 AM
You are probably right, but if he really wanted a legacy....and a justification to use ANWAR as a stop gap measure, while we fully explore alternative fuels in a much more serious way....he IS a lame duck. What the hell?

Now that would be "smart." :hmmm:

Mr. Bush's, and this Administration's, personal business interests, as well as that of their closest friends and allies, would not be helped by any of this, and therefore it will not happen.

Politics 101 -- don't do the exact opposite of what those who put you in office want.

Besides, it wouldn't get through this Congress, which is more business-friendly than any in about 3 generations.

oldandslow
03-15-2005, 08:21 AM
Don't mean to hijack the thread but I do want provide a first hand account of a hybrid car.

I purchased a Toyota Prius one year ago (after being on a waiting list for 6 months) and absolutely love the car. It has as much "gitt-e-up" as any other small car. I have never had a problem not having enough power to pass a semi, pulling off an exit ramp into speeding traffic, etc.

Further, I get 48-60 miles per gallon depending on how I am driving. (It does great in town - if all I did were city driving in temperate climates I would break the 75-80 mpg mark). It actually does better in city driving (as far as mpg) because the electric engine stays on full time until you break 30-35 mph. It has a 10 gallon tank that I fill up maybe every 3 to 4 weeks.

It has the same interior as the Toyota Corolla, so that might give you an idea of how much leg room, etc that have. It handles marvelously - almost like a high performance vehicle - without the transmission. Drive one and you will see what I mean. It really is a lot of fun to drive.

We drove it to Glacier National Park last summer and it did better on mountain roads than I expected. Just make sure you shift to "B."

I love the car. I will never own anything again that isn't a hybrid.

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:22 AM
As or ANWR, I have no moral or other objection to opening it up for drilling, if done "right".

What I do think, however, is that we should WAIT as long as possible to do it. When oil becomes much more scarce around the world, we open it up to help us bridge to new technologies as we move to completely wean ourselves off oil.

It's like a gigantic version of the National Emergency Petroleum Reserve (or whatever it's called), without the associates storage costs.


If I were the God-king of America, I'd declare this topic off the table for 50 years or so.

Mark M
03-15-2005, 08:22 AM
No, they don't and can't, really.

They have hundreds of billions of dollars (probably more like trillions) invested in doing ONE thing -- and that's taking advantage of petroleum and all its byproducts. Pumping it, shipping it, refining it, and delivering it to your local gas station, with whom they also have relationships.

Alternatives to that are neither within their areas of expertise, nor are they able to maintain anywhere near the same profit margin.

So instead they will resist to the very end to save their revenues and profits. You can't blame them for it, but we need to ignore it and do what's best for the country, not what's best for the oil giants.

In the short term you're probably correct -- the cost of making the vehicles that can run on hydrogen, building the fueling stations, etc., would cost quite a bit.

But in the long term, hydrogen has GOT to be cheaper -- they don't need to refine it, it's more plentiful than oil, and you don't need complicated pipelines, etc. to get it to where you need it.

It's just another case of an industry too stubborn to change and too stupid to realize the long-term potential of a particular market.

MM
~~:sulk:

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 08:22 AM
So instead they will resist to the very end to save their revenues and profits. You can't blame them for it, but we need to ignore it and do what's best for the country, not what's best for the oil giants.

I agree completely with that.

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 08:30 AM
Don't mean to hijack the thread but I do want provide a first hand account of a hybrid car.

I purchased a Toyota Prius one year ago (after being on a waiting list for 6 months) and absolutely love the car. It has as much "gitt-e-up" as any other small car. I have never had a problem not having enough power to pass a semi, pulling off an exit ramp into speeding traffic, etc.

Further, I get 48-60 miles per gallon depending on how I am driving. (It does great in town - if all I did were city driving in temperate climates I would break the 75-80 mpg mark). It actually does better in city driving (as far as mpg) because the electric engine stays on full time until you break 30-35 mph. It has a 10 gallon tank that I fill up maybe every 3 to 4 weeks.

It has the same interior as the Toyota Corolla, so that might give you an idea of how much leg room, etc that have. It handles marvelously - almost like a high performance vehicle - without the transmission. Drive one and you will see what I mean. It really is a lot of fun to drive.

We drove it to Glacier National Park last summer and it did better on mountain roads than I expected. Just make sure you shift to "B."

I love the car. I will never own anything again that isn't a hybrid.

A couple of years ago when gas spiked at about $1.85 I studied them and considered buying one. I commute about 45 miles one way each work day. I don't remember the actual numbers but back then one cost about $23,000, I think. I compared it against a cheap Hyundai with a 100,000 mile warranty.

In the end and figuring gas at an average of $1.80 it worked out I'd have to drive the hybrid about 254,000 miles to break even. That is without maintenance figured in. The numbers would be closer today seeing gas is even higher, but I'd still find it hard to pull the trigger and not buy a cheaper small all gas car.

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:34 AM
In the short term you're probably correct -- the cost of making the vehicles that can run on hydrogen, building the fueling stations, etc., would cost quite a bit.

But in the long term, hydrogen has GOT to be cheaper -- they don't need to refine it, it's more plentiful than oil, and you don't need complicated pipelines, etc. to get it to where you need it.

It's just another case of an industry too stubborn to change and too stupid to realize the long-term potential of a particular market.

MM
~~:sulk:

You're assuming hydrogen is going to work out as the best or most practice alternative. Ethanol seems promising and others are competing. Hard to spend billions and "select" a technology if the market hasnt' decided which way to go yet.

Cochise
03-15-2005, 08:40 AM
But at the end of the day we do need to upgrade. I just hope the new "cars of the future" don't look all sissy-like with big round edges and fins and stupid panels over the tires.

I'll purchase a hybrid (etc.) car as soon as they make one that isn't ugly as sin and does not bear more similarities in performance to those mart karts you see at the grocery store than to an actual automobile.

Mark M
03-15-2005, 08:46 AM
You're assuming hydrogen is going to work out as the best or most practice alternative. Ethanol seems promising and others are competing. Hard to spend billions and "select" a technology if the market hasnt' decided which way to go yet.

I'm just using that as an example, not as the end-all-be-all.

Regardless of what the alternative is, what I posted still applies.

MM
~~:)

Mark M
03-15-2005, 08:47 AM
I'll purchase a hybrid (etc.) car as soon as they make one that isn't ugly as sin and does not bear more similarities in performance to those mart karts you see at the grocery store than to an actual automobile.
How about a Ford Escape ... or Accord ... or Highlander ... or Civic ... or Chevy pickup ...

Also, the Prius, while ugly, does have 295 lb. ft. of torque when using the electric motor. Not exactly a Ferrari, but that's more than enough for the average driver.

MM
~~:D

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:47 AM
I'll purchase a hybrid (etc.) car as soon as they make one that isn't ugly as sin and does not bear more similarities in performance to those mart karts you see at the grocery store than to an actual automobile.

http://www.toyota.com/highlander/minisite/

270 horses

SULEV (Supra Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle)

Best fuel economy in class (only 27-30 mpg, but for an SUV that's very good).

Amnorix
03-15-2005, 08:52 AM
I'm just using that as an example, not as the end-all-be-all.

Regardless of what the alternative is, what I posted still applies.

MM
~~:)

Ethanol is a corn byproduct. I just read in the Wall Street Journal that there is an amazing boom going on with farmer and other "local" financed ethanol refineries (or whatever they're called) being built all over middle America.

It's probably getting overbuilt, and there is likely to be a crash, but that's another story.

Anyway -- unless the oil companies buy the big farm conglomerates, how are they going to get into this business and control it?

Besides, if they're smart -- they'll let these overenthusiastic folks overbuild the supply, and then when they start going under -- buy them up in bankruptcy or for a song... That may very well happen in 5-10 years.

Donger
03-15-2005, 08:57 AM
Frankly, I don't see why car-makers and oil companies don't try harder for, say, hydrogen powered cars. Once the technology is refined and the stations in place, the cost of providing it has GOT to be cheaper. I mean, it's freaking hydrogen ... one of the most plentiful elements in the universe.

MM
~~:shrug:

Oh the humanity!

Mark M
03-15-2005, 09:00 AM
Ethanol is a corn byproduct. I just read in the Wall Street Journal that there is an amazing boom going on with farmer and other "local" financed ethanol refineries (or whatever they're called) being built all over middle America.

It's probably getting overbuilt, and there is likely to be a crash, but that's another story.

Anyway -- unless the oil companies buy the big farm conglomerates, how are they going to get into this business and control it?
They can do just like other industries who are behind the times do: buy it. Lord knows they've got the cash. :)

Besides, if they're smart -- they'll let these overenthusiastic folks overbuild the supply, and then when they start going under -- buy them up in bankruptcy or for a song... That may very well happen in 5-10 years.
Although not guaranteed to happen, probably the most likely scenario.

Oh the humanity!
WHAT EVER WILL WE DO?!?!?

Oh ... that's right ... we'll pay $2+ a gallon for a fuel source that is incredibly inefficient and will eventually run out.

MM
~~:D

mlyonsd
03-15-2005, 09:05 AM
They can do just like other industries who are behind the times do: buy it. Lord knows they've got the cash. :)


Although not guaranteed to happen, probably the most likely scenario.


WHAT EVER WILL WE DO?!?!?

Oh ... that's right ... we'll pay $2+ a gallon for a fuel source that is incredibly inefficient and will eventually run out.

MM
~~:D

Actually GM has a pretty extensive hydrogen program going. I think they even have their own division. They've built very sound program cars that seem to be very dependable. At least that's what 60 minutes reported last year.

oldandslow
03-15-2005, 10:45 AM
A couple of years ago when gas spiked at about $1.85 I studied them and considered buying one. I commute about 45 miles one way each work day. I don't remember the actual numbers but back then one cost about $23,000, I think. I compared it against a cheap Hyundai with a 100,000 mile warranty.

In the end and figuring gas at an average of $1.80 it worked out I'd have to drive the hybrid about 254,000 miles to break even. That is without maintenance figured in. The numbers would be closer today seeing gas is even higher, but I'd still find it hard to pull the trigger and not buy a cheaper small all gas car.

I paid 21 for mine...you can get different option packages that go from 19-26. It also has the 100,000 mile warranty.

I also know (hybrids aside) that I trust Toyota much further than I do Hyundai - but that is, of course, anecdotal.

I did some of the same figuring you did...and determined that the Volkswagan Diesal is probably the best buy overall. I live so far north, however, that I did not trust the diesal in the winter.

That does not account for emissions either...the hybrids release far less than all gas or diesal...

SBK
03-15-2005, 01:51 PM
How about a Ford Escape ... or Accord ... or Highlander ... or Civic ... or Chevy pickup ...



Lexus RX330h, Nissan Altima are a few more coming out. Read that BMW, Porsche, Acura and VW are all working on hybrids as well, mostly for SUV's but Acura will probably replace the NSX with a hybrid powered sports car. Rumor also has it that Lexus wants to put a hybrid motor in the GS 430 and LS 430 to make an ultra luxury car to compete with the V-12's in the German cars.....

Calcountry
03-15-2005, 04:51 PM
What kind of message does it send to the radical Islamists when they see us "spoiled" Americans so unwilling to use our own resources but keep demanding more oil from their countries?

RINGLEADER
03-16-2005, 11:22 AM
The Prius is an itty bitty thing with 100 horsepower. WTF is gonna buy that? And yet some do.

They are coming otu with a new Highlander (SUV) with 270 HP and it's a hybrid. Let's see how that sells and then start moving towards MANDATORY use of hybrid vehicles at some point in the future.


Yeah, it's getting to the point now that I think pretty much all the cars made outside of Italy will be hybrids. There's really no reason they shouldn't be in 10-15 years. That's a good thing too.

RINGLEADER
03-16-2005, 11:49 AM
As or ANWR, I have no moral or other objection to opening it up for drilling, if done "right".

What I do think, however, is that we should WAIT as long as possible to do it. When oil becomes much more scarce around the world, we open it up to help us bridge to new technologies as we move to completely wean ourselves off oil.

It's like a gigantic version of the National Emergency Petroleum Reserve (or whatever it's called), without the associates storage costs.


If I were the God-king of America, I'd declare this topic off the table for 50 years or so.


I like that idea a lot but most of the things you'd need to have in place to be able to treat it as an emergency resource are the same things that the Dems are opposing. You can't just start drilling and processing and transporting the amount of oil you'd need overnight. Then you'd have the cost of maintenance to make sure it works when you need it to. You'd have to have pretty much everything in place and going whether you're pumping or not. Which then begs the question: If you have everything in place why not just use it now?

But it IS nice to know it's there...

RINGLEADER
03-17-2005, 12:30 AM
I'm sort of surprised no one posted about ANWR drilling passing today. The Dems really dropped the ball in the Senate...blew their chance to filibuster it.