Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
As John McCain and the Republicans trumpet their election year boldfaced lie--drill now so we can lower prices at the pump today--they continue to ignore a looming energy disaster with lives hanging in the balance.
Currently, eight million homes rely on heating oil during the winter months, and last winter's prices forced too many citizens to choose between heat, food, and medicine .
According to the New York Times, heating oil prices are now 36 percent higher than they were last winter and bills will be up to $1500 higher than they were last year. As for the 54 million households heating with natural gas, prices are expected to be 67 percent higher this winter. Current funding for the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is below 1980's levels--"a time when fuel prices were just a tiny fraction of what they are now," The Timberjay newspapers point out. In fact, last year's $2.5 billion in LIHEAP funding allowed just 16 percent of eligible recipients to receive aid. Congressional representatives of New England states have sought as much as $6.5 billion in additional LIHEAP funding to meet the anticipated needs of the upcoming winter. With both lower-income and middle-class people now unable to afford this basic necessity--a requirement for security in one's own home--newspapers in the Northeast are sounding a clarion call to head-off the impending disaster.
As the Boston Globe wrote in an editorial this month:
The country had a few days to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, and failed. It has more than three months to prepare for this frozen Katrina, and there will be no excuse this time.... A frozen Katrina will be measured in hypothermia cases and malnutrition or unfilled prescriptions if the poor are forced to spend grocery or medicine money on fuel.
"It could be New England's own Katrina disaster," read a Stowe Reporter editorial. "Hundreds of homes rendered uninhabitable, families' finances stretched to the limit, some driven away altogether to take shelter with friends or family. But unlike Katrina, this calamity is clearly visible on the horizon and we have months to prepare."
The Rutland Herald warned of service-providers who are already stretched thin:
No one wants to see refugees from the cold breaking into stores or second homes to spend the night, but there will be desperate people that the state's social service providers will be challenged to help, since most homeless shelters are full at present and may not be able to house any more people in upcoming months.
And, finally, from the Concord Monitor :
It will be interesting to see if the prospect of masses of New Hampshire citizens freezing at home gets the attention it so clearly deserves.
Indeed, the crisis has gotten the attention of Democrats--and some Republicans--in Congress, but an effort to respond was thwarted by yet another GOP Senate filibuster. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tried to increase LIHEAP funding all the way back in November, while President Bush proposed cutting it by $379 million. In March, Sen. Sanders offered a budget amendment that would have rescinded the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers and increased LIHEAP funding by $4 billion. Last month, he was the lead sponsor of the Warm in the Winter and Cool in the Summer Act which would double LIHEAP funding, adding $2.5 billion to the program (less than one week's funding in Iraq). Although President Bush threatened a veto (no surprise there, he has also proposed cutting the weatherization program that helps lower-income families reduce energy consumption over the long-term), there were fifty-two co-sponsors, including thirteen Republicans. Sanders called it a "tripartisan bill" with the majority of Congress, the nation's governors, AARP and others on board.
"People in the north understand that it would be inhumane to stand by while seniors freeze to death this winter or kids get sick," he said. "People in hot-weather states know heat waves can be killers." In a floor speech, Sanders cited Center for Disease Control statistics to further illustrate the urgency of this legislation:
Historically, from 1979 to 2003, excessive heat exposure caused 8,015 deaths in the United States. During this period, more people in this country died from extreme heat than from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined.... During 1979 to 2002, a total of 16,555 deaths in the United States, an average of 689 per year...were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold.
But when it came time to vote on the legislation on July 26, there were only fifty votes to end a Republican filibuster--ten shy of the sixty needed to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The GOP wanted "a vote on legislation that would open up the continental shelf to oil drilling."
"I understand the games that are played in Washington, but it doesn't make the obstruction tactics any less revolting," Sanders said following the vote. "This is life or death. People are dying in the summer heat. People will freeze to death this winter."
While Republicans continue to push drilling as their election year elixir, real pain, real lives, and real security are ignored.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
McCain- "My friends, if we just drill here, drill now...those folks who freeze this winter will be nice and cozy warm, my friends, come 2011, 2012, 2020 tops. My friends, I care about those people...that's why I would vote to cut the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, so that we can give them a $300 tax cut in the Summer of 2009. Senator Obama lacks the experience and knowledge, my friends, to know that potential frost bite now will lead to buck a tank heating oil in the future....next question, please?"
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:23am
This seems like a good time for a right-wing drive-by on Hugo Chavez...
Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2008 @ 11:41am
Wean yourselves from your addiction to heating oil and gas.
Burn neocons this November.
Posted by drhammer at 08/13/2008 @ 11:44am
Weatherization programs? LIHEAP?!? Taking my hard-earned money and giving it to those idiots who CHOSE to live in cold climates?!? Why, that's <sputter> INCOME REDISTRIBUTION! That's <sputter> that's <sputter> SOCIALISM!!! Let them sit in their hot tubs if they're so damn cold!
Speaking of hot tubs, I need to turn mine up. The air conditioning cools it down too much in the summer.
Posted by Balrog at 08/13/2008 @ 12:21pm
Let the poor freeze to death it's not our problem! Being alive isn't a right!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 12:26pm
Something has gone terribly wrong.
Posted by Zero at 08/13/2008 @ 11:45am
Yes indeed. And as Mask pointed out, McCain will ramble on how we need to drill for oil to help these people out. He knows damn well, (or at least he should know) that drilling for oil isn't going to solve a damn thing aside from lining the pockets of those making money off the drilling process.
This is a rethug wet dream come true. To watch Americans in blue states literally turn blue from freezing to death. They believe the federal government should only protect the ultra wealthy bankers while letting the rest of the citizenry freeze to death, starve, and lose everything they have so folks raking in millions and billions can get that extra yacht this year.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 12:30pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:23am
hey, that kinda stuff is my job.
you're supposed to trap the "others" in their inconsistencies.
lol.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 12:35pm
jimmy carter was right about the sweater.
just imagine how a 10% reduction in demand,
just 10%,
all these years would have helped keep prices lower.
hey, wait a second.
the real culprits are at the fed reserve, the debtexpanding warmongers, and the unregulated speculators.
drill this into your brain, mr. politician:
Welcome to Drake Landing Solar Community.
The Drake Landing Solar Community (DLSC) is a master planned neighbourhood in the Town of Okotoks, Alberta, Canada that has successfully integrated Canadian energy efficient technologies with a renewable, unlimited energy source - the sun.
The first of its kind in North America, DLSC is heated by a district system designed to store abundant solar energy underground during the summer months and distribute the energy to each home for space heating needs during winter months.
The system is unprecedented in the World, fulfilling ninety percent of each home's space heating requirements from solar energy and resulting in less dependency on limited fossil fuels.
The Government of Canada and its Canadian industry partners are proud to showcase Canadian solar thermal and energy efficient technologies in this one-of-a-kind community.
<<<<<>>>>>
one-of-a-kind! well, that's dumb. c'mon humans, wake up!
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
<<<<<>>>>>
we keep our apartment (we pay for heat) at about 55º (american degrees) in winter. maybe 60º if we've got guests. just think how much that would reduce demand if people put on sweaters!
actually, i hate sweaters. layers work much better.
and for those who are old or infirm, cut them some slack, mr. marketrulesman.
<<<<<>>>>>
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
<<<<<>>>>>
'scuse the rambling.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 12:46pm
To the oil barons:
Collectively subsidizing heating oil across the northern tier may be advisable. The next step might be providing state of the art, highly efficient furnaces. Some people are still using gravity fed, pooling heaters. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Seize the time. A stiff breeze may be preferable to a windfall.
Posted by Sorelish at 08/13/2008 @ 1:02pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 1:11pm
Happy, Not that you aren't predictable as hell but these two items were written before your post to poke fun at your ilk.
,,,Speaking of hot tubs, I need to turn mine up. The air conditioning cools it down too much in the summer.
Posted by Balrog at 08/13/2008 @ 12:21pm
and......This is a rethug wet dream come true. To watch Americans in blue states literally turn blue from freezing to death....posted by yours truly.
You neocons are about as compassionate as starved and abused pit bulls and have matching personalities.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 1:21pm
and have matching personalities.
Sorry, should have said and have matching dispositions.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 1:22pm
Every winter I hear the same cries from the NE. Every single solitary winter it's the same. I feel sincerely sorry for anyone who has to endure a bitter cold winter, but are poor northerners completely incapable of helping themselves? I guess it would seem so, or they're at least inadequate at the task. Why don't we hear about this sort of thing in other cold regions like, say, the Dakotas or Montana or, hell, Alaska!
It's just frustrating. My own father spent the first five years of his live WITHOUT electricity. And, yes, that means his parents spent their ENTIRE youths WITHOUT electricity. My father never once complained of being cold as a child (or hot, for that matter). I guess I can thank God they didn't live in the Northeast.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 1:48pm
TO ALL YOU NEOCONS,
I have this sneaking suspicion that the Neocons currently in the White House and those past will get really WARMED UP after the election!!!! You will see International War Crimes tribunals, Murder trials and so many civil suits you all will lose track of their numbers, afterall, at the most, you only have ten fingers and ten toes and only one head (however much swelled it seems to be now) Remember "Newt Republicans with their 10 promises?" And all we got was porkbarrel spending... Continue to sow your oats on the electorate, but remember, I THINK THAT THEY SEE THE PROBLEMS FACING THE US.. And, certainly they can count to more then 21.. Have a wonderful day, you all..
Posted by shriphoot at 08/13/2008 @ 2:08pm
A cold winter - say it isn't so...Gee, I thought global warming would take care of this problem, according to the left that is. Ask the people in the NE how they feel about off-shore drilling. If they don't want it then it must be hard to complain about high oil prices.
Posted by pyeatte at 08/13/2008 @ 2:13pm
the Dakotas or Montana or, hell, Alaska!
I'll field that one since I grew up in Montana. My dad literally froze to death in his house because the pilot light in his gas heater went out.
In my college days, the room I stayed in didn't have any heat and I froze my ass off. I would go shower at the school to try to get warm. I had to make due with the serious lack of cash I had to make ends meet to go to school....this is after serving in the military.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 2:16pm
I am in Seattle...any good wine bars or restauraunts you can recomend?
I am downtown, but have transportation..
Jomamma
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 2:08pm
JM, There's a place called Chinooks on the fisherman's terminal that's pretty good and the prices aren't bad.
There's an Irish Pub called Kells down by the market. They have good crab cakes and of course good whiskey and beer.
Then, you can always hit Alki Beach which is in West Seattle and there are quite a few nice places to eat along there.
There are also some good seafood restaurants along the piers just, but good luck finding a place to park. Seattle has a plethora of good places to eat.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 2:24pm
JM, There's one more place that was pretty good just off Pike Place Market, if it's still there. It's called the Wild Gineger and you should be able to get whatever wine you want there. They have an excellent menu, but are a little on the pricy side.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 2:33pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 1:11pm
Move to LA. It has only been above 90 maybe 2 weeks this year and rarely ever goes below 50.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by pyeatte at 08/13/2008 @ 2:13pm
pure nonsense.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 2:56pm
Posted by pyeatte at 08/13/2008 @ 2:13pm
Yeah I'm sure those extra barrels of oil that they will get 10-15 years from now will really help them out this winter.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 3:16pm
"In my college days, the room I stayed in didn't have any heat and I froze my ass off. I would go shower at the school to try to get warm. I had to make due with the serious lack of cash I had to make ends meet to go to school....this is after serving in the military.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/13/2008 @ 2:16pm | warn this person"
I'm sorry about your Dad. No amount of government handout for fuel could have provented an accident. As for you, it sounds like you perservered despite the hardship. You might also thank God you didn't grow up in the northeast. You may not have been as tough.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 3:20pm
Yeah I'm sure those extra barrels of oil that they will get 10-15 years from now will really help them out this winter.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 3:16pm
they won't even be extras. they'll probably be exported,
like the 1,000,000 BARRELS THE U.S. EXPORTS EVERYDAY RIGHT NOW!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 3:38pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 12:35pm
Naw, figured it was a good time to do my McCain impersonation. It's really quite simple, take a lame right-wing talking point (such as "We can drill our way out of this problem and the oil will be flowing in 10...no 5...no, this guy from the API said maybe (but not really) TWO YEARS!!!!!"...
and add a lot of "my friends" to it.
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 3:49pm
they won't even be extras. they'll probably be exported,
like the 1,000,000 BARRELS THE U.S. EXPORTS EVERYDAY RIGHT NOW!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You're right. It's not like we currently drill for our exclusive use, and we won't change course when drilling is finally expanded. Oil is traded on the global market just like any other commodity. Accessing our domestic oil resources will increase the global supply and it will reduce the price, guaranteed. Oil producers will sell to anyone who's willing to buy, whether it's you or someone from Angola.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 3:53pm
I've got to tell you, I really do not understand liberals obstinate resistance to expanding domestic oil production. It's just crazy. Any other country in the world would be drilling in a heart beat if they had our resources. They've got to be either scratching their heads or slapping their knees depending on their own resources.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:02pm
Oil producers will sell to anyone who's willing to buy, whether it's you or someone from Angola.----Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 3:53pm
So if the guys who drill off OUR shores want, they can sell the oil to ANYBODY, right? Not necessarily us, but say a burgeoning market in the Far East....right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 4:08pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes. That's correct.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The burgeoning far east market you site will be buying oil from someone in the global market at market prices. They can buy from anyone provided they aren't being politically/economically sanctioned. They will be consumers of the global oil supply just like everybody else. When America increases its output to the global supply, the crude price will drop for everyone reglardless of who's buying or who's selling.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:30pm
Along these lines, those who have a truly vested interest in America NOT expanding production are the world's current major suppliers, like Canada, Russia, Venezuela, and of course the Middle East. These, by the way are not "private" suppliers the likes of American or Brittish oil companies. These are socialized producers and the governments are directly benefited by the oil sales. They would be "hurt" by a price reduction brought on by increased supply. These governments are probably more likely to be driven by their own cupidity than Western private companies, by the way.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:45pm
All that said, if I am homeless and need handouts, LA is where I'd go...not much need for shelter from the elements.......and I hear your state is pretty generous w/state aids.......LOL! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 4:41pm
LA is the place to be if you are homeless. I don't know why the homeless stay in New York.
Is Houston humid? I haven't been. I have been to a few places in Texas just never Houston. I remember Dallas being very dry.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 5:20pm
Drier but hotter, stifling hot w/out the Gulf breezes which is, yes, humid! Our A/Cs' run as much as to cool as it is to strip out the humidity! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 5:36pm
I see I see. I don't have AC just a fan. Never really had a true need for A/C in LA. It can be bad when it gets into the mid to high 90's but nothing you can't deal with. It won't kill you like Texas heat can.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:53pm
When America increases its output to the global supply, the crude price will drop for everyone reglardless of who's buying or who's selling.----Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:30pm
No...what's the OTHER side of the equation, Person?
"supply and ______"?
Yes, "demand", and with growing economies in China and India, increased petroleum supply will get eaten up quickly. And given the REALISTIC targets for oil production from places like ANWR is TWENTY YEARS!!!!!....
demand will outstrip supply quickly.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 8:51pm
Accessing our domestic oil resources will increase the global supply and it will reduce the price, guaranteed.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 3:53pm
so someone else will cut back production to negate the effect.
guaranteed.
ta da!
burning oil is stupid. we're gonna need some real fancy plastics soon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 9:41pm
will sell to anyone who's willing to buy, whether it's you or someone from Angola.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 3:53pm
bad example
Oil - production 1.26 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption: 50,000 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - exports: 1.021 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports: 18,290 bbl/day (2004)
Oil - proved reserves: 25 billion bbl (2007 est.)
<<<<>>>>
hey angola. better hide those "wmd"s real fast.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 9:44pm
When America increases its output to the global supply, the crude price will drop for everyone reglardless of who's buying or who's selling.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:30pm
all right!
a 0.0067% price drop!
"hey honey, dust of the winnebago! we're going on a little tour........"
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 9:45pm
They would be "hurt" by a price reduction brought on by increased supply. These governments are probably more likely to be driven by their own cupidity than Western private companies, by the way.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 4:45pm
exactly the reason they would, and i stress the conditional "would",
reduce production to meet any microscopic rise in supply.
canada, oil, socialist?!?!?!?
must be the jimson weed...
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 8:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Precisely all the more reason to expand domestic production as quickly as possible. If your estimates are correct, by the time ANWAR comes online the oil will be worth more than its weight in gold. And I assure you that will be a fruitful investment.
I don't see the value in the defeatist view you hold. That keeping up with demand is futile, so why even try? Especially when our daily lives demonstrate the exact opposite. With all other traded goods and services that are in great demand, efforts to increase supply naturally increase.
Your opposition to increased oil production is illogical from an economic perspective.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 9:58pm
canada, oil, socialist?!?!?!?
must be the jimson weed...
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 9:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
My bad.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 10:09pm
Your opposition to increased oil production is illogical from an economic perspective.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 9:58pm
oil is poison. burning it is destroying our sky.
save the oil for plastics.
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
after all, OIL IS SOLAR ENERGY.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 10:12pm
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 9:58pm
Nooooo...precisely the reason to get AWAY from petroleum as an energy source, since supply will NEVER keep pace with demand.
BTW, ANWR estimated production time to get to 760,000 barrels a day....20 years.
Inflate your tires and get a tune-up (you know, that "dopey Obama idea")...
gets us 800,000 barrels a day savings NOW.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:45pm
There no doubt exists some conspirational machination to explain the market failures of "green" energies, but I suggest a very simple reason: To date fossil fuels are unmatched and irreplaceable. So long as the enormously obvious and inarguable disparity persists, "green" energies will be little more than a statement of lifestyle and personality accessible only to those able to afford the indulgence.
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm
It is called redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. It is hard to be compassionate about working poor from a private corporate jet flying back from a billion dollar deal in China. After all though they are busy creating wealth for themselves.Thank you Katrina I hope it helps.
Posted by julien38 at 08/13/2008 @ 11:02pm
A new world record has been set by a solar cell that converts 40.8 percent of light into electricity. The proud parents are scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:10pm
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:10pm
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:10pm
The new cell is grown on a gallium arsenide wafer. Then flipped over and the wafer removed. The result is an extremely thin and light solar cell with better performance and cost.
yeah!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:13pm
One chemist estimated in 2007 that at the current rate of usage, the world's supply of gallium would be exhausted by about the year 2017.
egad!
hide the gallium quick.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:14pm
Posted by Person at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm
Person, I JUST noted how conservation "matched" petroleum energy use (800,000 barrels per day from conservation versus 760,000 barrels a day ((20 years hence)) from ANWR).
So why can't "green technology"? (Note: FZ's solar cell story)
Reduce demand and you ALSO decrease prices, no?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 11:16pm
i'm glad to see that you've realized that conservation is a good thing.
as is better technology, of course ;+]
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/13/2008 @ 11:36pm
gotta love those hydrocarbons.....
TORONTO (Reuters) - Smog-related deaths are set to soar to more than 700,000 in Canada over the next two decades, the Canadian Medical Association said on Wednesday.
Long- and short-term exposure to air pollution will kill at least 21,000 Canadians this year, the CMA said in landmark study into health costs of poor air quality. That is much higher than a government estimate of 5,900 premature deaths linked to pollution.
"This report shows that things don't seem to be getting better," Dr. Brian Day, the CMA's president, said in an interview.
"And in fact, in terms of the actual numbers, they seem to be getting worse," Day said.
The CMA estimates the costs of health care and lost productivity from air pollution will top C$8 billion ($7.5 billion) in 2008 and climb to C$250 billion by 2031.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:19am
oooh, uranium:
Canada Uranium Shares Jump on Flood at Cameco's Cigar Lake Mine By John Kipphoff and Ian McKinnon
Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of uranium miners surged in Toronto, paced by Denison Mines Corp., on speculation prices for the metal may rally as Cameco Corp., the biggest producer, faces potential delays due to flooding at its Cigar Lake mine.
Cameco said late yesterday that its efforts to drain the No. 1 shaft at Cigar Lake, the largest untapped uranium deposit in the world, were overwhelmed by increased flows of water leaking into the mine. The company probably won't immediately change the projected start of production, currently planned for 2011, said spokesman Gord Struthers. Cameco may give an update tomorrow when it releases earnings.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
shit, we got all the uranium, too?!?
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:26am
well, we ain't got gold....
Canada still without a medal Globe and Mail - 58 minutes ago
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:27am
Relax Frosty, y'all will kick butt when the kayaking events come around. We all have our strengths, though I was hoping for at least a swimming medal.
We all know Georgie Boy ain't gonna do squat. I say let Hugo embarrass the tar outta him this winter. I mean he's sociopathic to the extreme, but hey, the oil companies can't exactly give it away now can they?
Posted by yutsano at 08/14/2008 @ 12:56am
Ford Vows To Kick SUV Habit Even If Gas Prices Drop
Corey Lorinsky | Aug 13, 08 6:30 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:18am
China May Tax Big Cars As Much as 40 Percent
ELAINE KURTENBACH | August 13, 2008 07:03 AM EST |
SHANGHAI, China -- China is raising its sales tax on big cars to as high as 40 percent, and drastically cutting taxes on small cars, in its latest attempt to combat emissions that contribute to heavy blankets of smog over most of its cities.
The tax on passenger vehicles with engines bigger than 4 liters will be doubled to 40 percent from 20 percent, effective Sept. 1, the Finance Ministry said Wednesday in a statement on its Web site. Those buying vehicles with engines sized from 2 liters up to 4 liters will have to pay a 25 percent tax, up from the current 15 percent, it said.
"Autos are the giants of energy consumption and pollution emissions and this is a major part of the effort to conserve resources and reduce emissions," the ministry said.
The sales tax for cars with engines at or smaller than 1 liter would drop to 1 percent from the current 3 percent, the Finance Ministry said.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:19am
Now countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai and Kuwait have programs to promote wind power farms, solar energy, solar powered desalination, more efficient use of oil through fuel cells, carbon sequestration, oil gasification, and green building, Pedersen points out, citing the carbon neutral city Masdar in Abu Dhabi, being developed in cooperation with Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In a second newspaper story from Dubai, Swati Taneja, a director from the Private Equity Forum which recently concluded in Dubai, said that people in Dubai have amassed new fortunes from the rising price of oil and gas around the world.
They now see massive opportunities in green investing. "Green investing is emerging as the new theme for the region," said Taneja. "It is not hard to discover why. The recent World Wealth Report by Merrill Lynch estimated that about 20 per cent of wealthy investors in the Middle East had already allocated part of their portfolios to green technologies and alternative energy -- the highest proportion of any region in the world."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:22am
It has been scientifically estimated that the global footprint of mankind exceeded the Earth's biocapacity in the mid 1980's, and that since that time we have been operating in an "overshoot" mode, meaning that we are consuming the planet's resources faster than they are regenerating.
hmmmm?
not long after fiat money started.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:36am
High energy prices are double-teaming with environmental concerns to prompt broad conservation efforts, with seven in 10 Americans saying they're trying to reduce their "carbon footprint," chiefly by driving less, using less electricity and recycling.
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>
see, mask, it didn't take that long, now did it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 01:41am
BTW, ANWR estimated production time to get to 760,000 barrels a day....20 years.
Inflate your tires and get a tune-up (you know, that "dopey Obama idea")...
gets us 800,000 barrels a day savings NOW.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:45pm
You simply have to stop relying upon leftwing sites for your data.
The longest estimates to reach 760k barrels a day=10 yrs. Most industry estimates put it at 7 yrs and Gov Palin of Alaska says if the govt will cut the red tape, we can begin seeing oil in 5 yrs. Secondly, the estimates show us getting 2 million barrels per day during peak production.
Also, as with Prudhoe and other reserves, the actual oil reserves in ANWR and offshore in Alaska will probably be 30-50% higher than current estimates if history is any reliable source. That means we would get oil from ANWR for somewhere around 25-30 years. If we started getting oil in 2015, that puts us at 2040-2045.
Than you have the new fields discovered in N Dakota. There is another 5-8 billion barrels.
We would be stupid not to start drilling immediately and lower our dependence on imported oil until new technology developments are fully implemented in the next 15-20 yrs.
But we could do what you leftists want and continue to be dependent on the ME and thugs like Hugo.
All while Russia and it's rising giant oil/gas company Gazprom are sweeping up control of reserves around the world in order to control the market. W/in 10 yrs, Gazprom is predicted to be larger than the left's favorite villan, Exxon.
We need to drill starting tomorrow to ensure stability in the market and to further our national and economic security.
The rising tide of public opinion has the Dems in Congress slowly moving to recognize the obvious need to drill now.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 02:42am
If we would just go all out to develop our natural gas reserves, no one would suffer from excessive heating costs.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 02:46am
Correction on the Bakken discovery in N Dakota. It's not 5-8 billion. Its 100 billion.
At 2 million barrels per day, that's about 140 years of oil.
That should give Frosty nightmares (lol)
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 03:00am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 02:42am
You should stop relying on your right wing pro-big oil websites for your data.
See it works both ways. I generally take the anti-oil and the pro oil and split it in half. So if the pro oil are saying 5 years at best to START production and the anti-oil are saying 15 years at best to start production. That means 10 years at best. To start. That's another 12-15 till peak production.
"We would be stupid not to start drilling immediately and lower our dependence on imported oil until new technology developments are fully implemented in the next 15-20 yrs."
By the time it hits peak production and becomes worth something to us. We won't need it anymore according to you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 05:53am
Here's an interesting solution to our carbon "problem". A devices that removes CO2 from the air. Now how's about that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm
Posted by Person at 08/14/2008 @ 06:43am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 02:42am
Yes, LVLIB, CCC nailed it. You chastise "left-wing sites" for information on development of ANWR...
yet YOU rely on the oil companies' sites, who have a vested interest in "low balling" the time it would take to develop, so as to get approval for opening up ANWR.
BTW, the OTHER part of my post was not a "left-wing site" (i.e. the part about proper tire inflation and tune-ups)...
unless you consider the BUSH Administration's Energy Department a "left-wing site"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 08:58am
BTW, I was wondering how long it would take KATRINA vanden Heuvel to change the name of this article from...
"A Frozen KATRINA"!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 08:58am
But we could do what you leftists want and continue to be dependent on the ME and thugs like Hugo.
you get your oil from the thugs in canada.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:11am
The rising tide of public opinion has the Dems in Congress slowly moving to recognize the obvious need to drill now.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 02:42am
good ol' public opinion......
so, why is public opinion so wrong about iraq and "president" bush?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:13am
Bakken no energy panacea
Apr 14, 2008 04:30 AM
TYLER HAMILTON
Those who deny that peak oil is a near-term problem can be so predictable. Hours after the U.S. Geological Survey released its study Thursday showing that the Bakken oil formation has up to 4.3 billion barrels of "TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE OIL," the emails started trickling in.
There's plenty of oil out there.
We just have to keep looking.
Peak oil is a scam.
The U.S. government's press release did look impressive, mind you. The Bakken Formation, a 40,000 square kilometre territory reaching into Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Montana, and North Dakota, showed a "25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered," at least compared to 1995 estimates.
A 25-fold increase? That's huge – or so it sounds.
But then you start comparing numbers. ASSUMING ALL 4.3 BILLION BARRELS COULD BE RETRIEVED, IT WOULD REPRESENT NINE MONTHS OF OIL CONSUMPTION IN THE UNITED STATES.
Canada's oil sands hold about 177 billion barrels, and Saudi Arabia has an estimated 250 billion barrels, if you can believe the numbers.
Now, let's consider the nature of the Bakken oil. It doesn't sit in big underground pools where you can just pop in a metal straw and suck it out. This oil is trapped in layers of shale – a sedimentary rock – up to 3,000 metres deep. Getting at it is expensive and difficult, and certainly damaging to the surrounding landscape and environment.
You thought the oil sands were messy and energy-intensive? Bakken is tough oil. You have to drill down and then horizontally through rock, which has to be fractured to release the oil that is tucked away in small pores.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:20am
glug glug glug.
save the oil for plastic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:21am
Yes, LVLIB, CCC nailed it. You chastise "left-wing sites" for information on development of ANWR...
yet YOU rely on the oil companies' sites, who have a vested interest in "low balling" the time it would take to develop, so as to get approval for opening up ANWR.
BTW, the OTHER part of my post was not a "left-wing site" (i.e. the part about proper tire inflation and tune-ups)...
unless you consider the BUSH Administration's Energy Department a "left-wing site"?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 08:58am
I didn't use oil company sites for my information.
I used a combination of the EIA govt site and industry analysts.
"The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:
2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/methodology.html
So if the President and Congress actually take action in the national interests, almost 1/3 of the start up time could be eliminated.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 11:24am
Posted by Person at 08/14/2008 @ 06:43am
Handle With Care
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 11, 2008
Last year, a private company proposed "fertilizing" parts of the ocean with iron, in hopes of encouraging carbon-absorbing blooms of plankton. Meanwhile, researchers elsewhere are talking about injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, launching sun-reflecting mirrors into stationary orbit above the earth or taking other steps to reset the thermostat of a warming planet.
This technology might be useful, even life-saving. But it would inevitably produce environmental effects impossible to predict and impossible to undo. So a growing number of experts say it is time for broad discussion of how and by whom it should be used, or if it should be tried at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:26am
So if the President and Congress actually take action in the national interests, almost 1/3 of the start up time could be eliminated.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 11:24am
egad!
the U.S. ALREADY EXPORTS 1,000,000 BARRELS EVERYDAY!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:27am
the U.S. ALREADY EXPORTS 1,000,000 BARRELS EVERYDAY!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:27am
which is 5% of our use
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 12:02pm
so how will bringing 5% more online affect anything?!?!?!??!?!??!?!?
you don't give a fuck about god's creation.
you just want to prove "the left" wrong in some sort of ego massage.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:53pm
plus it equals 8% of imports.
1,000,000 barrels per day
EQUALS THE IMPORTS FROM HUGO CHAVEZ'S EXPERIMENT IN GOD HATING!
but you don't care.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:57pm
.......nuclear cheerleaders such as Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has called for building 45 plants by 2030.......
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 2:53pm
But events this month show that life as a nuclear-powered nation is far from la vie en rose. In mid July, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) announced a leak from a cracked pipe at a nuclear fuel plant in the southeastern Drôme region. It said the leak was small and had not contaminated groundwater. Such was not the case, however, on July 7, when about 75 kilograms (165 pounds) of untreated liquid uranium were spilled at the Tricastin nuclear plant in the Vaucluse, north of Avignon. As the French began to repair to the countryside for their storied six-week summer vacations, those in this corner of Provence were being told not to drink the water--or swim or fish in it. One swimmer at a local lake told the Guardian that people had been ordered out of the water "as if there had been sharks in it."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:13pm
damn!
can't find the article.
anyhoo, a bunch of greenpeace dudes blockaded a french nuclear shipment passing through some town, catching everybody off guard.
the police just weren't ready.
for you terrorist scardydudes, this should be a warning.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:24pm
Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%)
hey, happy,
meet your new masters!
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:27pm
oops, those stats are for uranium production.
THE SUN! IT'S HOT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 11:24am
Weird LVL. Because that same report is the one that says oil production would not even breach 1 million barrels a day. Which would not make us even close to oil independent considering we use 20 million barrels a day. The May 2008 EIA report says
"In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030."
Which mean we wouldn't even be getting close to 1m barrels a day until 2027 then it would immediately decline. Hmm yeah oil independence.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 4:30pm
like i say happy,
careful what you wish for.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 7:45pm
Why does John McCain STILL oppose drilling in ANWR, then, HAPP/Darin???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 8:28pm
and deservedly so when less than half of the people believe it to be trustworthy! Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 8:03pm
Fox?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 8:56pm
a new refinery?
hahahahahaha!
ELK POINT, South Dakota (CNN) -- Farmland stretches as far as the eye can see -- row upon row of corn stalks waving in the breeze. It's an unlikely place to watch America debate its energy crisis but a battle is raging in this corner of South Dakota over what could be the nation's first new oil refinery in 30 years.
Plans were kept secret for months but residents of Union County have now voted in favor of rezoning land for a $10-billion refinery capable of converting 400,000 barrels of Canadian oil into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel every day.
But while the county as a whole favored the project by a 58 percent majority on June 3, most of the rural voters whose land would be affected by the refinery said no.
"I'll keep fighting it," said farmer Dale Harkness, whose front yard could one day face the refinery, which would also need a pipeline to be built.
He and his wife, Carol, vow to fight in the courts to prevent a project they say is speculative at best, and at worst will pollute the land, creeks and skies of this tiny town for generations to come.
"They will never build here. 150 years from now someone will be enjoying that land and this land," Harkness said, pointing to the property around him. Watch farmers and the local mayor react to the refinery plan »
"They" is a Dallas-based company called Hyperion Energy, which says the plant will be a first-of-its kind "clean" refinery. It has never built a refinery and concedes it doesn't currently have the money to build this one either.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 01:07am
"They" is a Dallas-based company called Hyperion Energy, which says the plant will be a first-of-its kind "clean" refinery. It has never built a refinery and concedes it doesn't currently have the money to build this one either.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 01:07am
quick,
fire up the printin' presses!
give 'em some cash!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 01:09am
happy,
cut the bee ess.
you know there will be no new refineries.
who in their right mind would build a new refinery that will
a) cost zillions,
b) be unable to refine anything in 30 years,
and
c) increase domestic gasoline supplies, thus lowering the price?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 01:15am
It would be ironic, if it weren't' so predictably ignorant, that Katrina Vanden Heuvel starts her article about Republican lies with one of her own--that markets don't react quickly to major news stories, like the world's only superpower announcing it will seek to produce much of its own oil in the future rather than import it from other countries. Markets can and do react that quickly, and all the more so when they garner as much attention as the oil market has in recent months. Unfortunately for her and the Nation, Vanden Heuvel's article demonstrates not only an ignorance of market dynamics but also provides a future prediction she cannot possibly make and one that is undermined by recent moves in the market she pretends to know something about.
Posted by griffith123 at 08/15/2008 @ 01:43am
Maybe he wants to fuck the elks & caribous? Maybe he's been paid off by the WWF? Maybe he traded that for some past support or future support on some other issues?
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 11:16pm
I'm going with option 2. He looks like a wrestler.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 04:14am
Someone can't do the math! "According to the New York Times, heating oil prices are now 36 percent higher than they were last winter and bills will be up to $1500 higher than they were last year."
For that to be a true statement, the bills that are going to be $1,500 higher this year would have been $4,200 last heating season.
A recent article in The Bangor Daily News says, "Aimee Gerbi estimates it cost the family $1,200 to heat their 1,500-square-foot home last year."
Is it possible that the cost to heat one home is $1,200 while it is $4,200 for another one? I guess it could be if we only report the extreme rather than the norm - something that reporters, columnists and politicians intentionally do regularly to deceive their audiences.
The NYT business reporter, Jan Mouawad, reported that the information came from "estimates derived from the government's latest forecasts for energy prices." He doesn't cite the source or a reference.
Assuming a government stooge said that, doesn't Mouawad have an obligation to question such an outrageous statement, and before spreading what appears to be a deception, shouldn't Katrina vanden Heuvel have done the same?
I believe that exaggeration is a common practice that newspaper writers and political hacks use to validate their beliefs. In this case, I think we have at least three examples substantiating my belief - the government stooge (if their really was one), the NYT business reporter and the editor of this publication.
Liars can figure, but figures can't lie. You will all go to hell for lying.
Posted by jjs404 at 08/15/2008 @ 07:52am
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 11:18am
Or he hopes (dang! there's that word again)
to "have it both ways"...claim to be an environmentalist (because he says he doesn't want to drill in ANWR) AND be Mr "Drill, Drill, Drill" for guys like you.
But, gee...can you even IMAGINE John McCain pandering to different groups with different, even contradictory messages?!?!?!?!?!??!???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/15/2008 @ 12:18pm
World Wildlife Fund and I was a member (when around your age now).
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 11:18am
see,
i KNEW you were human!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 12:23pm
i KNEW you were human!----Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 12:23pm
Maybe HAPP fell into some lava battling Obi-wan???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/15/2008 @ 12:51pm
actually, HAPPENSTANCE went into mining:
In material deleted from the final broadcast of the episodes, it is explained that Baltar was originally a colonial military officer who led an expedition to discover new sources of tylium for mining. After discovering a particularly rich tylium deposit on Carillon, Baltar decided to go into business for himself, leaving the military. He falsified records, declaring Carillon too minimal for mining, and set himself up with the Cylons and Ovions, who were also mining Carillon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 1:04pm
In my comment, WWF = World Wildlife Fund and I was a member (when around your age now). Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 11:18am
Oh yeah the WWF had to change it's name because they got sued by the World Wildlife Fund I forgot. I don't keep up on my wrestling. I guess World Wildlife Fund makes more sense in context. But hell I bet McCain could throw down in the ring in his hayday.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 1:14pm
Then the bridge to nowhere might lead somewhere!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/15/2008 @ 1:14pm
Wow, HAPP, really? Just "a few years"?
How many deep-sea drilling ships are available?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/15/2008 @ 3:45pm
As you have presented in your editorial, the LIHEAP is a necessary bandaid. If I were a member of Congress I would vote for immediate passage of a one year increase in the funding of LIHEAP. However we need to keep in mind that this is only a bandaid and be aware that the bandaid is infected. There are easy to follow maxims of supply and demand that tell us that there are unintended consequences of this LIHEAP bandaid that will only make the problem worse.The aid to the people in need becomes , in essence, a subsidy for the companies suppling the heating fuel. This is an artificial price support that only serves to keep the price of the fuel artificially high. The supply is plentiful. The demand is plentiful but the price is not necessarily in line with the cost. The supplier has a dis-incentive to lower price since they can reasonably expect the price to met by the government (i. e. we the people). As one of these people I am willing to give a temporary support to these people in need. I am not willing to support the suppliers. We need for business and government to be dis-entangled. And I need you to help me find a way to assist you in this effort. Clint Campbell Las Vegas, NV.
Posted by LazyBrowser at 08/15/2008 @ 8:07pm
We are currently the laughingstock of the World we have a looming energy crisis that the REICH says we can sovle it by more leasing and drilling, NOT. These mega rich oil companies have enough capped wells that they can open up and pump now, ther real problem is refining, the oil companies have less than half the capacity that they had 30 years ago.We need an alternative energy program that will easily put people back to work and get us off of OIL.Al Gores 10 year plan is very feasable and it will work, i don`t trust T. Bonne`s plan because he is a Neo conservative and neo liberalist who will somehow find a way to outsource wind and solar energy.The information and studies are there we just need to elect Obama and get this $hit cleaned up in Iraq and Afghanistan and throw out the corrupt politicians in both parties(mostly re-pukes).Obama`s going to get this mess figured out so we can get back to being America again and stop this neoliberal economy from doing more harm to the world and our future here in this country.
Posted by ams@50 at 08/16/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/17/2008 @ 12:02am
when it's cold,
do you
a) crank up the ol' thermostat
or
b) put on a sweater?
<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>
hmmm? let's see:
Oil - consumption:
20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - proved reserves:
21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)
1,046.15384615385 days. yay!
2.86617492096944 years.
damn......
SOURCE: CIA FACTBOOK.
FACT
BOOK.
FACT
BOOK.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:19am
that can't be right:
Oil - consumption:
20.8 million bbl/DAY (2005 est.)
Oil - proved reserves:
21.76 billion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)
<<<<<>>>>>
https://www.c
i
a.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
<<<<<>>>>>
21,760,000,000 ÷ 20,800,000 ÷ 365 = 2.86617492096944 years!!!!!
two years, ten months, and twelve days.
<<<<<>>>>>
o.k. rio,
drill away.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:26am
two years, ten months, and twelve days.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:26am
Scenario Four. This final scenario combines the second and the third scenarios. As in scenario two, consumption increases by 3% per year while production declines by 5% per year. And as in scenario three, a 5% discovery allowance is added to reserves each year. Because discoveries as well as changes in consumption and production have been factored into this scenario, it is likely the most realistic of the four. Here, United States oil reserves would last an additional decade longer than under the first scenario--until 2026.
It is interesting to note that, even under the final scenario, which is the most optimistic and accurate of the four:
Despite discoveries adding 5% per year, United States oil reserves would be half of today's level in only eight years.
United States domestic oil reserves would be completely depleted in less than 20 years.
US oil imports would need to increase from the current 63% of consumption to 84% within a decade, and to 90% within fifteen years.
US oil imports would need to increase from less than 5 billion barrels per year today, to over 13 billion barrels per year once domestic reserves ran out.
ASSUMING A CURRENT LEVEL OF 63% IMPORTS.
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=152&a=2885
drill, rio, drill.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:33am
let's say we add miracle oil.
offshore, god's country, horizontal inverted and bifocal drilling.......
the u.s. can power itself with oil for a miraculous 7 years..........
<<<<<<>>>>>>
United States proven oil reserves were 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration. [44] This represents a decline of 46%, or 18 billion barrels (2.9×109 m3) from 39 billion barrels (6.2×109 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×106 m3/d), and had declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d) by 2006. [45] United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production). Total production of crude oil from 1970 through 2006 was 102 billion barrels (16.2×109 m3).[46] Proved reserves divided by current production equaled an 11.26 years supply in 2007. Proved reserves divided by production was 11.08 years in 1970. It hit a trough of 8.49 years in 1986 as oil pumped through the alaska pipeline began to peak.[47] With over 2.3 million wells having been drilled in the US since 1949,[48] the likelihood of discovering new large oilfields is low. U.S. oil reserve numbers are very accurate compared to those of most other countries. Because of declining production and increasing demand, Net US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.16 million barrels per day (502×103 m3/d) in 1970 to 12.04 million barrels per day (1.914×106 m3/d) in 2007. Net imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007,
The EIA reports our "Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports" as 58.2%.[50]
o.k. 20 years.
and then?
drill, rio, drill.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:40am
"energy Independence" means we control OUR OWN Oil/energy this "off shore drilling' scam is fatally flawed Americans seem to be under the delusion WE OWN the Oil coming out of those wells WE Don't Own it now, Nor will we own it then. Tell Americans the Truth...ALL OIL, foreign or domestic, Will NOT Help US. WE were forced (conned) into Iraq for their oil- hows those gas prices? They have been beating theri Oil drums about invading Iran- still won't be our oil. And they are using the same rhetoric aobut 'Freedom' when it comes to Georgian liberation- Those providence want to cecede- we won't let them because the Oil Corps Pipelines run through their region! What makes people think that drilling off our shores will grant US the oil. Until we revoke all Leases by these Oil corps of OUR Lands and Shores. until we regain OUR Dept of Energy. Until we finally Own and control All energy obtained and produced by US, we will never be 'Energy Independent'
Posted by Purple girl at 08/17/2008 @ 12:02pm
Collection of flowers.
The right rose appears in my mind, and everywhere shines when the soft wind remains in the light of a flower; the cold leaf is dead and here there's a shadow, the delicate dark and a loving profile.
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by Sinibaldi at 08/17/2008 @ 2:42pm
Katrina Van de Huevel,
Better be nice to Insane McCain. When he becomes President January 2009 he will wage war on Russia.........Your home country.................
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/18/2008 @ 05:55am
Posted by POSEIDON at 08/18/2008 @ 05:55am
Speaking of "insane"!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/18/2008 @ 09:24am
some moron in my local paper here in NY State even regurgitated this GOP lie; i.e. democrats are blockading an "immediate" reduction in gas by stopping drilling...blah, blah....meanwhile we squander our attempts to be a true superpower,
bush is illiterate, he has never heard or read about speaking softly, carrying a big stick...etc...etc....or soft power...
mccain attacks obama and then copies him over and over and over, from talking one on one to world leaders to energy diversification....mccain sounds more and more like some delusional puppet of Rove.....
the limits of our empire-building are now evident, as Russia squanders yet another US puppet-state we were secretly training, it backfired no matter how you spin it, the message received is, US are fair-weather friends, unless you have something of immediate impact to US, you are useless; Georgia's oil flows to Russia...idiot mcbush says something like we have to say georgia, and yet doesn't know who they are fighting, doesn't know who borders Iraq, mispronouncs ossetia and abkhazia so much it is embarrassing but it is the same as the last embarrassing eight years under dumbya......a colleague says "everybody picks on bush just because he is stupid" yet cannot point to a single thing bush has done which has had intended outcome, NCLB a failure, "faith based" hoax, diverting taxpayer dollars to private right-wing mercenaries, outright lies and fabrications now coming to light, all impeachable, our Congress acts like it is neutered....judicial system bending over for al-ghraib and gitmo....spying on innocent Americans in case someday something happens, like in "minority report" yet our govt. which is inept at everything else....
what the f()& happened to our Constitution?????
people, get a clue.....
Posted by jrs112 at 08/18/2008 @ 6:20pm
what the f()& happened to our Constitution?????
people, get a clue.....
Posted by jrs112 at 08/18/2008 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
This is the post I come here to read. I've seen it written by innumerable miserable troglodytes who seem to suffer from an incurable form of liberal repetitiveness. A sort of psychosis reminiscent of Howard Hughes. It's fascinating, in a way, to witness such a breakdown as this. Liberal weltanschauung is too easily upset.
Posted by Person at 08/19/2008 @ 09:43am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/19/2008 @ 12:41am
A prime example of the need for more domestic drilling.In this case a frontal lobotomy.
Posted by Sorelish at 08/19/2008 @ 11:01am
I'm not defending the entire population of the Northeast...However, I will defend myself. My husband and I are both in our 50s and are still doing hard time yarding dead logs off our land to supplement the oil heat in our house through the winter for 20 years now. Sometimes through 3 feet of snow. This year we're putting in a second chimney in order to heat the whole house exclusively and sustainably with wood. Sometimes friends who take down trees let us have the wood; some of us take care of each other.
I have raised three responsible young women to adulthood all of whom make positive contributions to society. I work hard for a living in a job that helps my fellow human beings, and I spend my spare time volunteering in the Obama campaign office, taking abuse over the phone from "undecideds" who'd like me to prove that Barack Obama is not a Muslin. I don't sit on my duff drinking Mrs. McShame's Budweiser, content with the status quo, and wait for my fuel assistance check to arrive.
And yes, Frosty, I am a new name to blogging as I have only just scraped up the funds for an internet connection; however, I know nothing of these iPoints of which you speak.
Posted by LeftyInNH at 08/19/2008 @ 3:17pm
iPoints?
what's that?
got any ash trees out there?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/19/2008 @ 10:36pm