PDA

View Full Version : 108.00


oldandslow
03-10-2008, 12:51 PM
for a barrel of oil...

Dayam

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/markets/bc.oilprices.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008031014

The shrinking dollar may be about 15% of it, but that is an incredible number.

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2008, 12:53 PM
I know....let's convert everyone, entirely, to E-85 ethanol.

Then we can complain about the price of eggs, milk, and other foods impacted by the corn market....I mean, $5 per gallon of milk and $3.50 for a dozen eggs is probably just around the corner, right?

:hmmm:


;)

SBK
03-10-2008, 01:32 PM
I love our fed policies. Euro is $1.50, gold and oil at all time highs.

a1na2
03-10-2008, 01:58 PM
I know....let's convert everyone, entirely, to E-85 ethanol.

Then we can complain about the price of eggs, milk, and other foods impacted by the corn market....I mean, $5 per gallon of milk and $3.50 for a dozen eggs is probably just around the corner, right?

:hmmm:


;)

You forgot the price of corn fed beef!

Duck Dog
03-10-2008, 03:02 PM
So which of the possible POTUS's are going to change that? (for the good)

banyon
03-10-2008, 04:43 PM
I know....let's convert everyone, entirely, to E-85 ethanol.

Then we can complain about the price of eggs, milk, and other foods impacted by the corn market....I mean, $5 per gallon of milk and $3.50 for a dozen eggs is probably just around the corner, right?

:hmmm:


;)

Yeah, pick the worst current alternative to pretend there's nothing that can be done.

We all know the major manufacturers are saying it can't be done, so I guess it's up to the youth!

Andrew Angelloti, an Ecomodder forum member, converted his very own 1988 Mazda pickup to run on electricity last year, using $6,000 he had saved up from his part time job as a life guard. He built his truck using 20 flooded lead acid batteries to create 120 volts, which he couples to a 60 HP electric motor.

How does it perform? Reaches a top speed of 55mph, has an acceleration of not too bad, and can get up to 40 miles on a charge (which is more than enough to get him to work and back, and coincidentally, will be something similar to what the Chevy Volt is supposed to be able to do).

What's even more amazing is that Andrew is now working on a second EV conversion. This time he's doing the same with a 1992 Toyota Tercel, but with a much bigger motor for a lot more speed. He's hoping to use a 120HP motor to have the top speed up to 80 MPH with a bit of sacrifice of the range.

I wish Andrew the best of luck, as he is certainly going out there and doing it on his own, without waiting for the major manufacturers to do it for him.

oldandslow
03-11-2008, 07:32 AM
So which of the possible POTUS's are going to change that? (for the good)

None of the above. Limited resource with too much demand will do that to ya.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 07:39 AM
Yeah, pick the worst current alternative to pretend there's nothing that can be done...


Actually, I'm just messin' with oldandslow....he's a fellow South Dakotan, and a environmentally conscious fellow NTTAWWT.

FWIW, I support alternative energies enthusiastically; as you say though, ethanol is one of the worse alternatives, but because it makes OUR state money....it isn't politically correct to say so, here.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 08:20 AM
Why can't everyone, global warming fearmongers and head-in the sand pollyannas alike, agree on a dramatic increase in our reliance on nuclear power?

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 08:24 AM
Why can't everyone, global warming fearmongers and head-in the sand pollyannas alike, agree on a dramatic increase in our reliance on nuclear power?

I'm in favor.

Of course, the sticking point is the potential dangers associated with accidents, and safe disposal/storage of the waste. Legitimate concerns you must concede, even if they border on overblown fearmongering at times.

:shrug:

patteeu
03-11-2008, 08:37 AM
I'm in favor.

Of course, the sticking point is the potential dangers associated with accidents, and safe disposal/storage of the waste. Legitimate concerns you must concede, even if they border on overblown fearmongering at times.

:shrug:

They are well into the territory of overblown fearmongering, IMO. They border on being illegitimate concerns.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 08:42 AM
I have received negative comments because I have stated that peak production of US oil took place in 1970. So lets look at Oklahoma. In 1927 Oklahoma was the highest petroleum producing location in the world. But even at that time, that production would have only met about 5% of todays demand by the US.

10) How much oil and gas has been produced in Oklahoma, and how much is left?

From 1901 through mid-2002 a staggering 14.5 billion barrels of oil and condensate (natural gas liquids) and 90 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas were produced and sold in Oklahoma. See Figures 2 and 3 .

The natural follow-up question is: "How much is left?". To answer this one must not only know the ultimate volume of oil and gas that will be produced in the State, but because reserves must be economically produced, it also assumes an accurate forecast of long-term prices. To quote the Energy Information Administration (E.I.A) of the U.S. Department of Energy: remaining reserves are "the estimated quantities which the analysis of geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions". In this context economic conditions are synonymous with oil and gas price. As prices rise, so do reserves.
In their last estimate at the beginning of 2000, the E.I.A. projected Oklahoma's proved oil reserves at 610 million barrels (MMBO). Oklahoma natural gas reserves in E.I.A.'s last estimate on 1/1/2001 were about 14 trillion cubic feet (TCF). Both estimates were based on a simple poll of the State's thousands of oil and gas operators.

The state currently ranks fifth nationally in crude oil production and accounts for 3% of national production. This represents about one quarter of the peak rate that was reached in 1927, and is roughly equal to that seen in 1913. At $25 per barrel, this oil still has an annual value to the state of more than 1.7 billion dollars. Oklahoma consumes 50% more oil than it produces.

Oklahoma's 2001 natural gas production of about 1.6 trillion cubic feet represents about 8% of total U.S. production and makes the State the third largest gas producer in the country. Statewide gas production is about three times consumption. The State's current annual gas production is only about two thirds of the peak rate that was reached in 1990. However, because the gas price in 2001 was over two and a half times higher than that seen in 1990, its overall value of about 6.5 billion dollars is nearly double the value of 1990's production.

11) If oil companies spent more on exploration, couldn't Oklahoma supply all the oil needed in the U.S.?

No. U.S. demand far exceeds Oklahoma's supply. In fact, Oklahoma cannot even meet its own oil demand. See question 10. In 2002 U.S. demand for petroleum is about 20 million barrels per day. Oklahoma's production is about 183,000 barrels per day, which is les than 1% of U.S consumption. Even in the State's peak year of oil production, 1927, when Oklahoma was the largest oil producing entity in the world, we could have met less than 4% of current U.S. demand.

Most of the petroleum in Oklahoma that can be easily produced has been produced. Because exploration has taken place for over 100 years and about 480,000 wells have been drilled throughout the State the prospect of making any large oil discoveries is remote. For this reason the remaining undiscovered reservoirs will very likely be small and unprofitable for large multinational companies that have high overhead costs. However, smaller companies with expertise in local petroleum geology can still make money producing Oklahoma's undiscovered or partially drained oil fields.

Long-term improvement in Oklahoma's oil production decline must come as a result of improved recoveries in the fields that have been found already. The oil produced is always a fraction of what is present in a reservoir, and the oil that remains in Oklahoma's mapped reservoirs cannot be less than 42 billion barrels, and is likely to be much more. The oil that has been "left behind" will not be easy to recover, and will not be produced cheaply. However, the higher oil prices that must inevitably come as the world's productive capacity peaks will insure that Oklahoma will remain an important oil producer well into the 21st century.
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/oilgasfaq.php

I don't see how stating the reality that oil and gas are finite quantities and that our consumption is larger than our production and that production cannot economically be increased except over a few years is not being realistic. This administration tried to secure a supply in the Middle East. But you can think of the 2 trillion dollar price tag for the IRAQI WAR BEING A GASOLINE TAX.

Take 600 million gallons per day times 365 days per year times 5 years for the Iraqi war; divide that into 2 trillion (a conservative estimate) and you get one dollar and 80 cents $1.80 PER GALLON OF GASOLINE TAX OVER all those gallons of gas consumed.

You pay one way or another. I'd rather be paying American know how in looking for alternatives to oil.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 08:47 AM
They are well into the territory of overblown fearmongering, IMO. They border on being illegitimate concerns.

What is your answer to those two concerns then? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 09:10 AM
I know....let's convert everyone, entirely, to E-85 ethanol.

Then we can complain about the price of eggs, milk, and other foods impacted by the corn market....I mean, $5 per gallon of milk and $3.50 for a dozen eggs is probably just around the corner, right?

:hmmm:


;)

Maybe even mass starvation? Ethanol is expensive and hard on the environment too. But then what would one expect when we insist on govt being involved in alternative fuels? Answer: Nothing but an expensive, less efficient choice.

banyon
03-11-2008, 09:27 AM
Maybe even mass starvation? Ethanol is expensive and hard on the environment too. But then what would one expect when we insist on govt being involved in alternative fuels? Answer: Nothing but an expensive, less efficient choice.

Do nothing and hope the problem will go away! The market's done such a great job so far!

Adept Havelock
03-11-2008, 09:29 AM
They are well into the territory of overblown fearmongering, IMO. They border on being illegitimate concerns.

Then you're OK with us storing the waste in a facility behind your house where the kids play? Excellent. :p

I'm in favor.

Of course, the sticking point is the potential dangers associated with accidents, and safe disposal/storage of the waste. Legitimate concerns you must concede, even if they border on overblown fearmongering at times.

:shrug:

Indeed. It's a very real concern, much as that pains some people. We do need to ramp up the amount of power we generate from nuclear power, so we'd best address these questions.

I always keep coming back to one thought when it comes to disposal of radioactive waste. How can we deal with something with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years, when the longest lived institution man has come up with so far is only a couple of thousand years old? Seems a bit of hubris, IMO.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 09:30 AM
Do nothing and hope the problem will go away! The market's done such a great job so far!

That has much more to do with the lack of incentives and aggressive research, due to the lobbying of "Big Oil"...which is one of the reasons I'm attracted to Obama.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:33 AM
What is your answer to those two concerns then? :shrug:

Refine as much usuable fuel out of the byproducts of our nuclear reactors as possible and then store the rest. What I'm saying is that I think the concerns are overblown.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Then you're OK with us storing the waste in a facility behind your house where the kids play? Excellent. :p

I almost replied to Kotter by saying that we can get past the NIMBY phenomenon by storing the waste in everyone's backyard.

You can store it on my land if the government foots the bill for containment, maintenance, and rent.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Refine as much usuable fuel out of the byproducts of our nuclear reactors as possible and then store the rest. What I'm saying is that I think the concerns are overblown.

And you are satisfied that we can do that safely? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 09:36 AM
That has much more to do with the lack of incentives and aggressive research, due to the lobbying of "Big Oil"...which is one of the reasons I'm attracted to Obama.

The best incentive is soaring prices from oil.
Here's an example of what the market is doing for cents per gallon.
Govt doesn't do as good a job because it's based on consensus, when breakthroughs require creative and independent minds.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vX6CnNc3CFU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vX6CnNc3CFU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

tiptap
03-11-2008, 09:45 AM
As a chemist HHO is an improper rearrangement of H2O chemical symbolic empirical formula. One can use HOH as a proper Cation/Anion symbolic formulation. Please note that this man USED ELECTRICITY to get hydrogen from electrolysis. There are people who use solar energy to produce their electricity to produce hydrogen and I am all for that. This has been known since Priestly. It is not a energy source from water. It is an energy source in the production of water from Hydrogen and Oxygen combustion.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
And you are satisfied that we can do that safely? :shrug:

Of course, I'm comfortable.

Taco John
03-11-2008, 10:02 AM
for a barrel of oil...

Dayam

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/markets/bc.oilprices.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008031014

The shrinking dollar may be about 15% of it, but that is an incredible number.


It's way more than 15% of it.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 10:02 AM
As a chemist HHO is an improper rearrangement of H2O chemical symbolic empirical formula. One can use HOH as a proper Cation/Anion symbolic formulation. Please note that this man USED ELECTRICITY to get hydrogen from electrolysis. There are people who use solar energy to produce their electricity to produce hydrogen and I am all for that. This has been known since Priestly. It is not a energy source from water. It is an energy source in the production of water from Hydrogen and Oxygen combustion.

Is a cost-effective and enduring source likely anytime soon? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 10:16 AM
As a chemist HHO is an improper rearrangement of H2O chemical symbolic empirical formula. One can use HOH as a proper Cation/Anion symbolic formulation. Please note that this man USED ELECTRICITY to get hydrogen from electrolysis. There are people who use solar energy to produce their electricity to produce hydrogen and I am all for that. This has been known since Priestly. It is not a energy source from water. It is an energy source in the production of water from Hydrogen and Oxygen combustion.

Well then, as a chemist I would think you'd call this firm and research how much it uses. I can say that I have since they're in my general area. It uses very little electricity. The amount of expense compared to what we save is still a net gain. Then we can have a 100 mile trip on 4 ozs of water for just cents, compared to dollars a gallon. What do you want tip-tap? Like any new technology it's going to be refined and evolve. In fact I've read ( and had a link at one time for it) that this can be developed without electricity. But you won't see any govt chemist discovering any such thing because they are not mavericks or risk takers. Those guys are in the private sector. Didn't you say you worked for the govt?

Furthermore, it's this process that is making coal cleaner and increases its BTU. This company is about to R&D beginning this Friday how to enhance ethanol so it requires no gasoline or diesel while increasing it's BTU.

Oh and last but not least, this firm refuses to accept any govt funds for the reason that the Bayh-Dole Act has a contentious provision in it where their discoveries can be liscensed to others or waived. Who will discover or develop anything that will work with that collectivist mentality? I doubt few. It doesn't work and never has....that's for backwards place like China, the old Soviet Union and former Iron Curtain countries.

Did any of those places develop electricity, the light bulb, the automobile, telephone etc. etc. etc.? Nope!

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 10:20 AM
I find it interesting that it's in hydrogen technologies that the private sector is investing in. That tells me it's more worthwhile or more workable.
Because if you can make something cheap enough for the masses and solves the problem one can make millions. Nothing wrong with that. That
s the best incentive—not milking taxpayers for less workable technology that costs more and ruins the environment.

As for things coming anytime soon, well Hydrogen Technologies of CW Florida has contracts with automakers and even a contract to develop a Hummer for the US govt that will run on both gas and hydrogen technologies.

Let's not forget the auto industry, think it was Ford, had a steam engine at one time, but the internal combustion engine became more popular.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:30 AM
Well then, as a chemist I would think you'd call this firm and research how much it uses. I can say that I have since they're in my general area. It uses very little electricity. The amount of expense compared to what we save is still a net gain. Then we can have a 100 mile trip on 4 ozs of water for just cents, compared to dollars a gallon. What do you want tip-tap? Like any new technology it's going to be refined and evolve. In fact I've read ( and had a link at one time for it) that this can be developed without electricity. But you won't see any govt chemist discovering any such thing because they are not mavericks or risk takers. Those guys are in the private sector. Didn't you say you worked for the govt?

Furthermore, it's this process that is making coal cleaner and increases its BTU. This company is about to R&D beginning this Friday how to enhance ethanol so it requires no gasoline or diesel while increasing it's BTU.

Oh and last but not least, this firm refuses to accept any govt funds for the reason that the Bayh-Dole Act requires they no longer own the rights to their discoveries. Who will discover or develop anything that will work with that collectivist mentality? I doubt few. It doesn't work and never has....that's for backwards place like China, the old Soviet Union and former Iron Curtain countries.

Did any of those places develop electricity, the light bulb, the automobile, telephone etc. etc. etc.? Nope!

Did they ask you to invest by any chance?

oldandslow
03-11-2008, 10:41 AM
It's way more than 15% of it.

What was the dollar against the Euro the day this last gas spike began - say Jan 07? $1/$1.35

What is it today? $1/$1.53

The cost of oil Jan 07 - $57.00

Cost now $108 or thereabouts.

So the dollar has lowered about 18 cents (or about 13%) since Jan 07.

Oil has raised 51 dollars since Jan 07 (almost double the price).

It's not all about the dollar.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 10:49 AM
Did they ask you to invest by any chance?

No! But even if they did with a $9k per year in elementary and middle-school tuition I'd not be able to.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 11:54 AM
Well then, as a chemist I would think you'd call this firm and research how much it uses. I can say that I have since they're in my general area. It uses very little electricity. The amount of expense compared to what we save is still a net gain. Then we can have a 100 mile trip on 4 ozs of water for just cents, compared to dollars a gallon. What do you want tip-tap? Like any new technology it's going to be refined and evolve. In fact I've read ( and had a link at one time for it) that this can be developed without electricity. But you won't see any govt chemist discovering any such thing because they are not mavericks or risk takers. Those guys are in the private sector. Didn't you say you worked for the govt?

Furthermore, it's this process that is making coal cleaner and increases its BTU. This company is about to R&D beginning this Friday how to enhance ethanol so it requires no gasoline or diesel while increasing it's BTU.

Oh and last but not least, this firm refuses to accept any govt funds for the reason that the Bayh-Dole Act has a contentious provision in it where their discoveries can be liscensed to others or waived. Who will discover or develop anything that will work with that collectivist mentality? I doubt few. It doesn't work and never has....that's for backwards place like China, the old Soviet Union and former Iron Curtain countries.

Did any of those places develop electricity, the light bulb, the automobile, telephone etc. etc. etc.? Nope!

I am in favor of using the existing power per minute that exists in our electrical grid that exists in excess at night primarily to charge batteries or to produce Hydrogen by electrolysis as this man did and then run the cars off that stored power in batteries in the car or in burning the produced hydrogen during the day. You can get very good recovery of that energy by fuel cells conversion of Hydrogen to water and get back that electricity. That is a NASA promoted technology from early on in the space program. It is wonderful.

61,000 BTU exist in each lb of hydrogen gas burned. Gasoline gives you 21,000 BTU per LB. But it takes a bit more than 61,000 BTU to make that hydrogen from water. The efficiency in recovering that energy from fuel cells is very good. So you can take 4 oz of water and use existing electrical source (that usually burns a fossil fuel) and STORE that BTU in the form of hydrogen gas. Use it to drive a electrical car with good results. And I believe it would be cheaper than gasoline about right now. Especially if ramped up. But the original source of energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Now we can convert to coal for example and go completely electric and get off the oil tit. 10 years ago this would have been my view to get rid of our dependency. But it would be even cheaper and distributed source so wonderfully redundant to use solar energy on site everywhere. But this does not suit well the Centralized Socialistic Energy Utilities model for their cash cow of energy enterprise. You only make money in the initial sell of solar cells and no monthly bills going to utilities. You do have to have the infrastructure to move the energy around. They could rent the distribution system since they own now sort of.

This should partially answers Kotter but I want it clear that your example BEP, is derived technology from NASA and basic research and is not getting energy from water but is storing energy from the grid in the chemical form of Hydrogen gas. To state otherwise violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. That has never been seen.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 12:19 PM
This should partially answers Kotter but I want it clear that your example BEP, is derived technology from NASA and basic research and is not getting energy from water but is storing energy from the grid in the chemical form of Hydrogen gas. To state otherwise violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. That has never been seen.
Proove it! As far as I know, most of NASA's science is derivative in nature and secondary to other, earlier major scientific breakthroughs.
And if that's the case, then this company can't claim exclusive rights as it would have been public information. So how come the gov't scientists didn't think to apply this technology this way?

tiptap
03-11-2008, 12:19 PM
Iraq isn't spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus, auditors told Congress on Tuesday.

The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices.

"The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. . . . One of the questions is who should be paying."

Walker and the other auditors did not give a figure as to the likely surplus. U.S. officials contend that Iraq's lack of spending is due primarily to Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently. Two senators have called for an investigation into the matter.

Democrats say the assessment is proof that the Iraq war as a waste of time and money. The U.S. has spent more than $45 billion on rebuilding Iraq. And while officials in Iraq contend that much progress is being made, many projects remain unfinished and U.S. troops are still needed to provide security.

"They ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own costs and not keep sending the bill to the United States," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

In recent months, Iraq experienced its highest oil production and export levels since the war began five years ago, said Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

That spike in revenue combined with the highest oil prices in history, "coalesce into an enormous revenue windfall for the Iraqi government," Bowen told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Whereas Iraqi officials estimated $35 billion in oil revenues last fall, Bowen said the final number is likely to be closer to $60 billion.

"That certainly gives them resources to carry forward with an extensive reconstruction plan," Bowen said.

But according to other U.S. officials, a major problem is that Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials.

"I think they are beginning to do more," particularly in improving its military and buying new weapon systems, said Claude Kicklighter, the Pentagon's inspector general. "And I think that's certainly the trend that we should be following."

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the U.S. has designated $6 billion to rebuild Iraq's energy sector and $300 million to develop Iraq's government ministries. But GAO contends that the U.S. doesn't have a strategic plan on how to accomplish either goal.

The State Department told investigators it believes the Iraqis should be responsible for devising such a plan. GAO disagreed.

"In our view, it's a shared responsibility. U.S. taxpayer money is involved," Walker said.

Last week, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va., asked GAO to investigate what Iraq is doing with its oil revenue. The senators estimated that Iraq will realize "at least $100 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Time to get out/

alanm
03-11-2008, 12:26 PM
Up over 109.00 so far today. :cuss:
I saw that was over a 70% price hike in less than a year.

alanm
03-11-2008, 12:27 PM
Iraq isn't spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus, auditors told Congress on Tuesday.

The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices.

"The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. . . . One of the questions is who should be paying."

Walker and the other auditors did not give a figure as to the likely surplus. U.S. officials contend that Iraq's lack of spending is due primarily to Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently. Two senators have called for an investigation into the matter.

Democrats say the assessment is proof that the Iraq war as a waste of time and money. The U.S. has spent more than $45 billion on rebuilding Iraq. And while officials in Iraq contend that much progress is being made, many projects remain unfinished and U.S. troops are still needed to provide security.

"They ought to be able to use some of their oil to pay for their own costs and not keep sending the bill to the United States," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

In recent months, Iraq experienced its highest oil production and export levels since the war began five years ago, said Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

That spike in revenue combined with the highest oil prices in history, "coalesce into an enormous revenue windfall for the Iraqi government," Bowen told the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Whereas Iraqi officials estimated $35 billion in oil revenues last fall, Bowen said the final number is likely to be closer to $60 billion.

"That certainly gives them resources to carry forward with an extensive reconstruction plan," Bowen said.

But according to other U.S. officials, a major problem is that Iraq does not have the capacity to allocate the money without it being wasted or pocketed by corrupt officials.

"I think they are beginning to do more," particularly in improving its military and buying new weapon systems, said Claude Kicklighter, the Pentagon's inspector general. "And I think that's certainly the trend that we should be following."

The Government Accountability Office estimates that the U.S. has designated $6 billion to rebuild Iraq's energy sector and $300 million to develop Iraq's government ministries. But GAO contends that the U.S. doesn't have a strategic plan on how to accomplish either goal.

The State Department told investigators it believes the Iraqis should be responsible for devising such a plan. GAO disagreed.

"In our view, it's a shared responsibility. U.S. taxpayer money is involved," Walker said.

Last week, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John Warner, R-Va., asked GAO to investigate what Iraq is doing with its oil revenue. The senators estimated that Iraq will realize "at least $100 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Time to get out/

I thought we went in there because of the oil. ROFL:spock:

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2008, 12:38 PM
Up over 109.00 so far today. :cuss:
I saw that was over a 70% price hike in less than a year.

Many people think McCain has no chance to win in November. I'll tell you what....

If this continues, and gas prices hit $4.00 gallon for any length of time at all....this will single-handedly (well, the ripple effect of it across the economy) will ensure an Obama/Clinton victory in November.

It may not be right, it may not make sense....but it will be true. Consumers will look for a scapegoat....and Bush, and the Republicans WILL be blamed for it. And it won't matter if it's "fair" or not. :shake:

tiptap
03-11-2008, 12:43 PM
Proove it! As far as I know, most of NASA's science is derivative in nature and secondary to other, earlier major scientific breakthroughs.
And if that's the case, then this company can't claim exclusive rights as it would have been public information. So how come the gov't scientists didn't think to apply this technology this way?

OK but it was the money from NASA that drove the research at GE and other companies to meet the needs of space travel. The demand for fuel cells wasn't coming from the private sector. It came from government directed monies. Much of what we see around the different Fuel Cell types comes from that expenditure. And I am glad to have even more minds working on it to refine the technology and refine its use. I am glad, overjoyed, ecstatic to have private ventures in this area. And I am sure there will be good improvements. I have always contended that good minds, whether in industry or academics or government is the trump card in seeing success. In the US companies have recruited a lot of those good minds.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 12:50 PM
Many people think McCain has no chance to win in November. I'll tell you what....

If this continues, and gas prices hit $4.00 gallon for any length of time at all....this will single-handedly (well, the ripple effect of it across the economy) will ensure an Obama/Clinton victory in November.

It may not be right, it may not make sense....but it will be true. Consumers will look for a scapegoat....and Bush, and the Republicans WILL be blamed for it. And it won't matter if it's "fair" or not. :shake:

They might ought to be blamed for not planning for this situation. It is their boys Goldman's Sachs, that had the information about how things would move. Couldn't they help facilitate getting off Oil. Isn't this what I said last election cycle? Get off the oil tit to help control costs of oil. Oh no we can't plan ahead. It is always better to be behind the curve in the market so we can pay the oil companies more because oil is endless.

banyon
03-11-2008, 01:06 PM
The best incentive is soaring prices from oil.
Here's an example of what the market is doing for cents per gallon.
Govt doesn't do as good a job because it's based on consensus, when breakthroughs require creative and independent minds.

The diabolical government, as usual, is spending WAY too many of our tax dollars on alternative fuel research! :rolleyes:

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/fun/suckfiles/image006.gif

Mi_chief_fan
03-11-2008, 06:22 PM
I know....let's convert everyone, entirely, to E-85 ethanol.

Then we can complain about the price of eggs, milk, and other foods impacted by the corn market....I mean, $5 per gallon of milk and $3.50 for a dozen eggs is probably just around the corner, right?

:hmmm:


;)


Well, milk has been running over $4 a gallon here for some time, and eggs are about $2.50 a dozen.

Coach
03-11-2008, 07:43 PM
Many people think McCain has no chance to win in November. I'll tell you what....

If this continues, and gas prices hit $4.00 gallon for any length of time at all....this will single-handedly (well, the ripple effect of it across the economy) will ensure an Obama/Clinton victory in November.

It may not be right, it may not make sense....but it will be true. Consumers will look for a scapegoat....and Bush, and the Republicans WILL be blamed for it. And it won't matter if it's "fair" or not. :shake:

Well, before 2000, it was a reasonable price. Ever since they got on board, it just nearly tripled.

Yeah, I truly believe they're responsible for it. Those tax cuts to big oil isn't helping matters either.