<< Liberal Upbringing At Its Best | Home | So Much For ... >>

Neal Boortz Gets It Right

Neal Boortz hit the nail on the head with this one:

OIL NEARS $117 A BARREL ...

And our "friends" the Saudis are balking at increasing production. So while they continue to screw with us on oil ... let's be sure to respond here in this country by:

   1. Refusing to drill in ANWR for more oil in the very portion of ANWR that was set aside for the purpose of drilling for more oil.
   2. Refuse to tap the known reserves of oil and natural gas off the West coast of Florida because, after all, we certainly don't want tourists in Florida to catch sight of a drilling rig 25 miles off shore now do we?
   3. Refuse to develop ways to use the oil shale from the Western United States.
   4. Refuse to develop coal gasification techniques.
   5. Refuse to build any more refineries in the United States.
   6. Listen to the anti-nuke moonbats and continue to delay building some nuclear power plants.

And while we're doing all of these things let's make sure to keep the subsidies for ethanol at a ridiculous high so that we can take more land out of food production to grow more corn to be turned into an alternative fuel. We burn more than a gallon of fossil fuels to produce a gallon of ethanol .. so this sounds like a good bet to me!

Oh ... and let's continue to call the Saudis our friends and kiss their sandy butts at every possible opportunity.

Hmmm, all of this sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Print | posted @ Monday, April 21, 2008 6:53 PM

Comments on this entry:

Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/22/2008 11:40 PM
Hey Braden, remember back awhile ago when you were griping about 75 dollars to fill your tank? You should be delighted at the news today that those "wacky" environmentalists (like Edward Markey, D-Mass.) got through Bush's thick skull finally and got him to pass the fuel economy bill. All cars have to get 31.6 miles to the gallon by 2015. Also, 25 states, including California are forcing their electric companies to get 20 percent of their power from renewable resources like wind and rivers by the year 2010. This will make for a surge in energy prices for the development of these technologies followed by quite a dramatic drop in home energy costs post-2010 or 2011ish.

The fuel economy initiative will save over 55 billion gallons of oil in a period of only 4 years. Beyond that it will save much much more.

My point is this. We don't need to mess around with nuclear power or ravage the environment to drill for more and more oil. When I said that we should be patient this is what I was talking about. When I said that reducing our consumption will drive prices down, this is exactly what I was talking about. The American government is very perserverant and it is legislation like this that is the solution. Force big business to play fair and start thinking about the future of the American economy and environment.

Maybe you are right. Maybe Global Warming isn't real. Maybe most environmentalists are a bunch of wackjobs. Who cares? Their policies are money saving policies!!! If both parties go along with this Global Warming stuff and act like it is really happening, then the government can implement legislation like those above and if we give it 5 or 10 years (be patient!!!) we will actually start to see the money saving results.

We don't need to drill any more oil. In fact, we will see the results of legislation like this MUCH faster than if we started drilling for new oil tomorrow.

And this guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to #4. I work for the Union Pacific Railroad and we are well on our way to developing liquid fuel made from coal. In fact, we even have some prototype engines running on the stuff right now.

Guess who would die to get their hands on the recipe for liquid coal/diesel fuel and patent it? The oil companies. Why? So they could sit on the idea and let it rot for 50 years and then finally when the public demands a liquid coal engine, the oil companies will introduce the "coal/gasoline HYBRID."

Talk about "sonzabitches."

  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/23/2008 10:07 AM
Yeah Andy, we need MORE government mandates, right?

"Also, 25 states, including California are forcing their electric companies to get 20 percent of their power from renewable resources like wind and rivers by the year 2010."

Yeah Andy, and yet you forgot to mention the environmentalists are against wind power because the turbines are killing birds...so that being said, how are we going to harness power from the wind since the environmentalists are against wind turbines in the first place?

And who exactly is going to be the one to determine the definition of "reducing consumption" as you put it? And let's tax the car manufacturers even more by imposing even more government mandates on them, then you can sit back and wonder why the cost of the automobile continues to skyrocket. But then again, you'll come back and say the "evil car companies" are to be blamed for that.

So Andy, exactly how much big government do you want in your life?

"We don't need to mess around with nuclear power or ravage the environment to drill for more and more oil"

Now you're contradicting yourself. You told me in a previous comment:

"Why have we not done more to develop more nuclear power? Because there is too much money to be made in oil! Ahhh, capitalism..."

Which is it Andy? You can't have it both ways.

"And this guy doesn't know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to #4. I work for the Union Pacific Railroad and we are well on our way to developing liquid fuel made from coal. In fact, we even have some prototype engines running on the stuff right now."

And this technology has matured enough so much that it is now ready to be mass produced next year, right Andy?

Oil is where it is at NOW, Andy. You keep giving me lists of technologies which are still in the basic experimental/prototype stage while refusing to acknowledge the fact that none of those technologies are ready NOW. So Andy, what do we do NOW? Reduce consumption is what you said, right? And who do you put in charge of who determines the term "reduce consumption?" How do you enforce "reducing consumption?"

Sounds a whole lot like Communism to me.

Yeah Andy ....

Don't drill for oil. Don't drill for gas. Instead, let's all invest in gerbil power as we wait for the technologies you outlined above to come out of the "prototype" stage while the nation's economy grinds to a halt due to the high price of gasoline which can be attributed to the lack of refinery construction over the past 30+ years.

"Guess who would die to get their hands on the recipe for liquid coal/diesel fuel and patent it? "

Say what? So what you're basically doing is telling me something you think the big bad oil companies are doing, even though you have no proof whatsoever to back up your claim.

Forgive me, but you come across as someone who is so very much against capitalism. But that's ok, even though you benefit from capitalism each and every day of your life.

Meanwhile, China is off the Florida coast drilling for oil, while we all sit back and twiddle our thumbs as we watch the price of gasoline skyrocket all while listening to people like you bitch about the evil oil companies. We have our own oil resources on our own soil, and yet we're not allowed to drill. Instead, we should sit back, bleed to death as a nation, and wait as you so put it.

That's outright insanity, and not to mention stupidity of the highest level.

  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by david drake at 4/23/2008 7:36 PM
Yeah, Andy - and there's a few areas where we (you and I, and I don't think Braden would object to me including him as well) where we had some common ground in past comments on oil and energy. And I'm not joining in to beat up on you, but you really do want to seem to have it both ways where you seemed to favor nuclear energy in the past but now, a short time later, you advocate against it. It seems your stance is perhaps not as well-though out as you maintain?

There is plenty of oil if we drill for our own. The days of "cheap" oil is over since the global demand has greatley increased. Just because we use less of it doesn't mean that oil on the global market will go unused and bettering the earth's environment - - others will buy what we're not using.

We are painting ourselves into a weak corner by not exploring and drilling where we know we have domestic reserves of oil on our land and off the coasts. In the meantime, sure, work on alternative energy and energy independence. We're not going to flip a switch one day and magically covert from one form to another.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/24/2008 9:07 AM
Excellent points, David!
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/26/2008 6:54 PM
Fellas, Fellas, Fellas. Not ONCE have I said I am against Nuclear Power. In fact, I have a little money invested in USU, who are trying to get a contract to convert old Russian warheads into nuclear power and I think thats cool. Nuclear energy gives off absolutely no emissions. The only problem is what to do with the hazardous waste from the reactors. That stuff is EXTREMELY toxic and downright scary to think about considering the past accidents at nuclear facilities. I am all for nuclear energy if we can keep safety as our number one priorty in dealing with such a volatile commodity.

But why not invest in renewable energy that doesn't have as many harmful side effects like wind, ocean waves, solar and whatever they call it when they harness the heat from the Earth's core and create steam energy.

All I am saying is, ANYTHING BUT OIL! Yes, Braden, I depend on oil EVERY SINGLE HOUR OF EVERY SINGLE DAY. I just just truely believe that we are brainwashed economically and that it does not have to be this way.

And the point that I have been trying to make all along: Even if we do start drilling for oil, its gonna be a LONG time before that oil reaches the market. Legislation like the fuel economy policy and the renewable energy policy above are solutions that I believe will work much faster and will be more effective in the long run.

But that's just me. You have to admit that there are pros and cons and upsides and downsides to the whole oil or no oil debate. You have to admit that neither of us have it completely right and neither of us are completely out in left field on our stances.

Just make sure you guys aren't putting words into my mouth though. I am not against nuclear power. I just would prefer the less dangerous and more environmentally safe alternatives.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/27/2008 7:30 AM
Andy, name me ONE single renewable energy resource which has the same output in terms of power output as oil does. Name me ONE of those renewable resources which is ready now.

What are we doing? Growing corn and burning it, which now is causing massive food shortages, something which I knew would happen.

It's insane madness as far as what we're doing. Drill for god damn oil already. Quit growing corn and burning our food for Christ sakes. DRILL!!!!!

But that's ok, we'll watch China drill off of the Florida coast, Andy.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/27/2008 12:17 PM
There is no other energy resource that has the power output of oil right now. That's not what I'm trying to argue. I am trying to argue that it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. If big oil would stop sabotaging all other attempts to harness other forms of energy, than we could reduce our dependence on it dramatically.

And yes, not only is ethanol creating food shortages but they are also mowing down wild life reserves to make room for more farm land as well as drying up a heck of a lot of fresh water reserves to grow the stuff. I am not exactly thrilled about ethanol myself. I think that could have been planned out A LOT better and with a lot less haste.

And finally, I hate to say it. But the oil on this continent is not ready right now either. It takes years and years of research and development and transportation and laying pipe and yadda yadda yadda to make our tiny little oil reserves useful. And down the road we are going to run out of the stuff, anyway. Its not the quick fix and easy solution that you are always trying to make it out to be.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/27/2008 2:38 PM
We all don't need to eat either, Andy. In fact, why not invent a little pill we all ingest and then it would eliminate the need to sit down at the kitchen table.

"If big oil would stop sabotaging all other attempts to harness other forms of energy, than we could reduce our dependence on it dramatically."

And where is your proof of this? Let's see solid factual information to support your claim.

So, Andy....again:

What do we do NOW? Drill, or "patiently wait?"
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/27/2008 2:41 PM
I forgot to mention:

Andy, I don't know what it will take in order to convince you of this:

OIL is where it's at. Our entire infrastructure runs on oil. Cars, trucks, tractors, heating homes, manufacturing, etc.

All you're doing is sitting back and making claims by blaming the oil companies on blocking alternative energy sources.

You still haven't responded to the fact of China drilling off the Florida coast, either. Why so silent, Andy?
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by david drake at 4/27/2008 4:59 PM
I'm going to repeat my 3rd paragraph from above:

"We are painting ourselves into a weak corner by not exploring and drilling where we know we have domestic reserves of oil on our land and off the coasts. In the meantime, sure, work on alternative energy and energy independence. We're not going to flip a switch one day and magically covert from one form to another."

That's all I can add, or repeat. I'm not against alternative energy, I'm against costly and artificially cost inflated alternative energy when oil is cheaper and more plentiful.

I agree with Braden that the most bang for the buck is oil and that no alternative fuel to date has the advantages that oil does; shelf life to name one. Ethanol can't be "pipelined". Plus all the water that goes into manufacturing even one gallon of ethanol, but I know tech keeps getting better at using and re-using the water used to make ethanol.

Glad you're on board with nuclear, Andy. Containing and disposing of the waste is an issue. Do we know what and how France handles their nuclerar waste and what they're doing with it?
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/27/2008 9:46 PM
You say:
"OIL is where it's at. Our entire infrastructure runs on oil. Cars, trucks, tractors, heating homes, manufacturing, etc."

I say:
Once again, not arguing with you here, man. That's pretty obvious. Absolutely right on the money there. Now, as far as "bang for the buck" I don't know if I can agree with that if oil gets up to 200 dollars a barrel.

You say:
"You still haven't responded to the fact of China drilling off the Florida coast, either. Why so silent, Andy?"

I say:
OK...I don't know what you want or expect me to say to this other than 'Good for China.' If they want to keep on sucking on the tit of oil then more power to them. I don't really have a point to prove about that whole situation because I honestly don't care. I have been talking this whole time about what I feel is the best direction for AMERICA to take. I am thinking locally on this particular topic. I really could care less what China is doing. Everybody is so scared of China these days and always wondering what the heck China is up to and blah blah blah. I really just don't give a hoot.

You say:
"And where is your proof of this? Let's see solid factual information to support your claim..[about the Oil Industry being a bully]"

I say:
This is going to be an extremely long comment but if you really want to know I can provide an example. So here goes:
Back in the early nineties somebody on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) stepped outside and took a big whiff of all that smog and decided to do something about it. They implemented the Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate (ZEV).
This required that within the next couple of decades, a certain increasing percentage of vehicles on California roads must not emit any smog causing gases into the air. By 2010 I think their plan was to make it at least 10 percent or something like that. The details don't matter...
Anyway, this mandate was kind of cool in that it gave tax incentives to individuals for things like riding their bikes to work and stuff. It also gave incentives for car companies to develop electric cars and what not. General Motors decided to take advantage of the mandate and developed the EV1 fully electronic car. They leased out the first batch to some lucky Californians and wouldn't you know it??? They were a hit among consumers! Here is a car that goes up to 60 miles an hour and requires NO GASOLINE. And it could go over 80 miles without a charge. And NO EMISSIONS!!!
Almost immediately the oil companies and some auto makers jumped on this and filed lawsuits against CARB. Poor babies...they were set to lose trillions of dollars because of this!!! We couldn't have that!!!
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/27/2008 9:47 PM
Fast forward to the next decade and all of a sudden you have the United States Department of Justice also filing lawsuit against CARB and under whose administration? Why, our good ol' buddy Georgie Poo. And since we all know that George can't make his own decisions, who was it that was breathing down his neck to make sure that CARB's ZEV mandate did not have a chance of success? Who wanted to make sure that other states did not follow suit? Cheney, Condoleezza and Andrew Card...all of them former board of directors or executive committee members of big ass oil companies and/or automobile companies.

CARB could not take the pressure of pending federal lawsuits and they cracked under the pressure. They were forced to reverse the ZEV mandate.

General Motors was feeling the same heat that CARB was and they recalled every last one of the leased EV1s and immediately halted production. If you watch the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" you see footage of brand new EV1s going to the junkyard crushers. GM could not take the pressure of the oil companies bullying them and threatening to sue and our own federal government pushing them around. The electric car simply disappeared.

Also, before they were forced into giving up the EV1 project, GM had been looking into ways to extend that fairly short battery charge life of only 80 miles or so. They contracted a company called Ovonic who were developing a Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery for electric cars. In order to deliver the final blow to the EV1 and ensure its doom, Texaco quickly bought up a ton of Ovonic shares. Then Chevron bought Texaco. So, back then and all the way through to the present, Chevron owned/owns exclusive power over the licensing of anything that has to do with NiMH battery cells.

Chevron fiddled around with the design and sold it to Toyota with the strict condition that NiMH batteries were only to be used in the making of gasoline/electric hybrid vehicles (even though the batteries were designed to fully operate a vehicle by themselves without the help of gasoline). This clever little tactic ensured that Chevron would look like the good guys by making a "hybrid" car, but we would still be slaves to oil and would still be required to put gasoline in our cars. Plus they jacked up the prices on those battery cells by thousands of percent so that replacing them would cost in the ball park of 5000 to 8000 dollars. They were designed to last only 50,000 to 80,000 miles making the hybrid car look not so rewarding for the consumer after all. Chevron wins. America loses. Dirty, filthy tactics.


Oil companies can lobby, strong arm, pay off, buy out, threaten, file lawsuits against and downright stomp out any technology that they see as threatening to their profits.

So there is the example that you asked for, Braden. I am not a very good story teller, I can tell some more tales if you would like, though.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/28/2008 11:01 AM
Where did you get that information, Andy? Please provide links to your sources. I'd be interested to know where you acquired them from.

One more thing:

I find it interesting that in 1995, Bill Clinton vetoed a bill to open up ANWR to drilling. His reasoning? We wouldn't see any oil for 10 years. Gee, thanks Bill. It's 2008 now, and we *sure* could use that oil now, huh?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm692.cfm

Fascinating. Thanks to the Environmentalists, and to Bill Clinton we now have the situation we're now in.

You were saying, Andy?
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Andy at 4/29/2008 9:20 PM
http://oesa.org/publications/articledetail.php?articleId=6528

http://ev1.org/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/paul.commentary/

http://www.sherryboschert.com/FAQ.html#green

A lot of the info is off the top of my head, I guess. I just read a lot about the stuff at places like www.greenparty.org which is updated often. Look at the archives there, I guess. Just Google some stuff if you are really interested in the topic. There is some good stuff on Wikipedia about ZEV and CARB and they always site their sources so check them out, too. Also check out the movie documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car."


  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/29/2008 10:35 PM
Interesting. But I won't get into the authenticity to SOME of the sources you're basing your information from. In fact, most of your sources appear to be rather disingenuous.

The electric car commentary via the CNN link outlines the single point of failure these electric vehicles had. Low limited range. I remember Ford offering the all electric powered Ranger pickup back in 1998 through 2002. It had problems Why? The limited range and battery service life problems which appeared at around 25,000 miles. Who wants to plunk down the serious cash for an all electric vehicle when the range is minuscule? Not I, especially when a gasoline powered engine can get 400+ miles on a tank of gas. No thanks, man!

So it's the evil car companies now, too? Well, it sure looks that way according to sherryboschert.com. Why do the companies always have to take the heat for the incompetence of our lawmakers? For example (And I did take note that you took it upon yourself to ignore it via my previous comment ... fascinating!): Bill Clinton vetoed a bill in 1995 which would of opened up ANWR for drilling. His reason? We wouldn't see the oil for 10 years. It's now 2008. We should could use that oil now, huh?

And, even if an all electric car were to be released tomorrow with a range of 500 miles per charge, the "evil" electric companies would be held accountable for something or another, rest assured. Nothing ever satisfies the environmentalists, Andy.

Nothing.
  
Gravatar # re: Neal Boortz Gets It Right
by Braden at 4/30/2008 8:26 AM
I meant to supply the link for the Ranger EV:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV

Sorry about that.
  
Comments have been closed on this topic.