I don't get you Moby. You did say "hardcore environmentalists".

For the most part... almost all of them... that definition means the left. Most of whom are Democrats... or vote Democrat.

You know that as well as I do.

Even if it is that low, what was your point to begin with?

Home heating oil is still a bit cheaper than natural gas. Depending on your type of boiler and what type of heating system you own.

My heating expenses are still much lower than others I know with similar size homes who use natural gas for heating. Especially the ones who use forced hot air.

It's all expensive and most comes from foreign sources. Natural gas is no bargain.

It would make a huge dent in all the plants that burn natural gas to create electricity. Many new plants in recent years were built to use natural gas.

I would prefer coal and nuclear, but the enviro-radicals get their panties in a twist whenever both are mentioned.

It's called obstructionism and the Democrats are knee deep in it.

While I am for greater, much greater use of nuclear energy I question whether it is the eco-fascists who are blocking factor. There are a lot less anti-nukes people compared to 20-30 years ago. However we suffer from regulatory/legal messes that were created back from the 1970s/1980s. Even with the full blessing of the state/federal government I don't believe utility companies are brave enough to build a new reactor. But equally damning, there is still the ever-present "not in my backyard" mentality wrt nukes. Soccer moms will undoubtedly blame the presence of a newly built nuclear reactor fifty miles away for an outbreak of thrush or rubella. So bottom line: I would be shocked if a new reactor is built in the USA within the next fifty years, regardless of the political party in power.

Oh, perhaps on a different note, why is it generally believed that all eco-fascists are Democrats? I don't see how rabid pro-environmental beliefs jive with all the other attributes of what it means to be a Democrat. Now Republicans, why would they want to shit all over the environment? Are they pro-business at the expense of literally everything sacred? What scares me is that such gross simplifications of Democrats and Republicans have some reflection of truth ... and I just don't understand it. I would have thought, VERY NAIVELY, that energy policy and environment management issues can be handled in bi-partisan fashion. It's not like we are talking about Terry Schiavo or legalizing gay marriage. IMHO, it is utterly outrageous for BOTH parties(, neither party is innocent,) to allow partisan wrangling to inhibit progress on something so vital to America's interest that isn't inherently partisan in nature.

[crawling back under my rock...]

_Lazza

And what you are doing is called obfuscation.

If you read my original post, I said nuclear would not really address our dependence on "middle east oil." I said SOME environmentalists want to revisit it.

But then you turn around and say no DEMOCRATS are calling for it (I NEVER mentioned Democrats).
And you say home heating oil is at an all time high (I only mentioned percentages of homes heated with oil (and I was correct with the 10% figure)). Lastly, you go into natural gas (I never said a word about natural gas).

The thieving bastage class are those with comp plans tied directly to quarterly share price and change of control clauses in large private common-carrier infrastructure industries; been there, dug the bonus checks, got the polo shirt(s). Commodities speculators by contrast (used to) at least put their own tail a little closer to the line but it is a bit un-nerving when you see pure financial play outfits like Goldman Sachs treating world energy futures like the next internet, housing, or currency casino. Electronic trading in energy futures outside the US is not subject to the same transparency and audit requirements as trading in US markets which makes it easier to earn overly large profits on middleman deals (e.g. Enron/California) and so I maintain that thieving bastage arse hattery remains engaged in the energy markets.

BTW, there are a couple dozen nuclear plant siting permit request projects in the industry association pipeline. Given solid, responsible, honest construction to specification, good maintenance and proper operation it could work.

The "it'll take five years to get oil out if we drilled so it won't do any good" Arguement makes me laugh.

The second that we finally realize the tiny footprint we would leave in ANWR and the benefit it would give us ( read pull your enviro nutass head out) Saudi Arabia etc will amp up production.

Production lowers the cost for all you math majors who skipped economics

BTW raise your hands if you have plans to visit ANWR that we must keep "pristine"?

Have fun on your trip. Say hello to the five Caribou and the NOTHING ELSE that is there.

Except bilions of barrels of oil.

Look at it like this. If we drill in ANWR the only thing to get megarich in the region is the aforementioned five caribou. Now if they go Allah wacko and start blowing stuff up to get 40 virgins, well then I guess that would be okay.

Because we'll "deserve" that too.

I have no plans to visit the Grand Canyon, so I vote we dam it up. We could use the hydro power.

Yes, it seems to me the media has paid much more attention to the (lack of) supply of oil issue compared to hypothesis that much of the oil price spurt is caused by over-enthusiastic commodities speculators. Since it is said that the price of oil goes up when the US dollar price goes down then obviously the oil price is not just a matter of (oil) supply and demand. I believe I've heard that the folks in London, where oil is traded, have agreed to observe new "recommendations" by the US gov't wrt transparency. This will come into effect 1 October. It will be interesting if this has any impact on oil prices.

One a different note, this week's edition of 'The Economist' has an excellent special feature on energy. It focuses on the long term. It's rather up beat yet balanced.

_Lazza

I've been there, and the part I was in was stunning. I realize most of us won't ever visit, but the feeling you get just being in a place like that hard to describe.

That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to drilling up in the coastal area - but it has to be worth it. If it provides us with another year of fuel or a temporary price reduction of a few cents per gallon, why bother?

It's clear you haven't been there. It already is dammed up...twice. Once at Glen Canyon and another at Hoover Dam.

Smartass.

I have been there. I have no plans on going back. So I think it should be a huge ass lake. Not only would a dam (that I can only assume would make Hoover look like a beaver dam) provide a shitload of electricity, but you could start to irrigate the whole four corners area - think of all the corn we could grown for ethanol! And the recreation would be fantastic.

Correct on both counts. One thing worth adding regarding nuclear plants is that each one tends to be built as a completely custom solution rather than having any sort of overall set of standards. While some customizing is inevitable, standardization would drastically decrease the costs to build the plants.

As to the enviro-nuts being all Democrats, I'd say that's false. In terms of highest level per capita in a part, it has some truth. However, my guess is that the Libertarians end up with a pretty decent chunk as well - and then there are all of us independents.

There's more to pricing of crude than simple supply and demand, just like there's more to pricing gas than the price of crude.

Secondly - do we really want to increase supply? Honestly? Thing of the long term ramifications of that. We're dealing with a finite supply. The higher prices, as much as they suck, are causing all sorts of research into alternative options (the bio-engineered organisms, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.) quite simply because the higher prices mean there's huge profit to be made. This is all natural market dynamics and it's working quite well.

If we open up ANWR we pull down our reserves more quickly. If that causes the Saudis to increase production, then we can also pull down the world's reserves more quickly.

My personal vote is to not open ANWR at this time . We can open it later, preferrably when the Saudis are basically out and we've got alternative sources. Then we can dictate to the world what they'll pay for fuel.

However, if we open it now and decrease the demand for alternative sources, we simply delay the problem until supplies might become incredibly scarce and put us in an incredibly difficult position - as opposed to the difficult one we're in now.

I say we build the nuclear power plants in the ANWR, let an "accident" happen that mutates Stone's five caribou, then set the caribou loose in the Middle East to terrorize the OPEC-member states until they agree to ramp up production.

And throw in some free falafel.

Desert Rate I'll smartass you one more time....there isn't enough water to keep Lake Powell and Lake Mead full...another dam would be pointless. Glen Canyon and Hoover dam already provide a shitload of hydro power.

Jus' sayin'.

The logical place to dam the canyon would be at Toroweep. A 3000 foot deep lake would result. I can't imagine how big a dam would have to be to hold back that much water.

The size of the dam? You don't have to worry about sizing. Just give Rosie three boxes of Twinkies and drop her in the canyon, the dam will build itself. Maintenance will be some Twinkies, bon-bons, and the occasional story about Bush being in league with reptilian aliens from the 12th planet that orbits our sun, but only comes around every 10K years.

Thanks for that gawdawful picture...

And of course you know that the footprint in ANWR would be extremely small.

Not demolish it or put the whole thing under water.

And looks like it only took us TALKING about drilling and look Saudis may increase oil output

Hey I'll go along with not pulling the billions of barrels of oil outta ANWR until it is really needed.

But hey, why not go and get all the infrastucture there and get it ready?

Then the drive by media and the assmasses wouldn't be able to say " but it won't do any good for five years so why bother"

And of course you know that the footprint in ANWR would be extremely small.

You and your Rush Limbaugh talking points. Of course the oil companies want you to think it'd be a small footprint. The reality is they want to have a tower-thing every acre to suck it dry.

Not demolish it or put the whole thing under water.

More lies - it'll be like Valdez all over. The oil companies will drill and let the oil run free on the ground, tankers will collapse due to lack of maintenance, and the workers will do nothing but hunt the native species to extinction during their free time.

And looks like it only took us TALKING about drilling and look Saudis may increase oil output YEAH PEAK OIL !!!!111!1

Hey I'll go along with not pulling the billions of barrels of oil outta ANWR until it is really needed. It doesn't matter - peak oil means we'll all be living in huts in 20 years. So only hippies and Boy Scouts will survive.

But hey, why not go and get all the infrastucture there and get it ready?

Then the drive by media and the assmasses wouldn't be able to say " but it won't do any good for five years so why bother"

Because it costs a lot of money and there'd be no return on that investment, which is horrible for the balance sheets.

Gone for a few days, bingo, more conversation.

OK, I give, the oil companies didn't have areas closed to drilling. But I can't help but emphasize that their accidental oil spills, no matter the cause, helped to mobilized an entire industry around cutting off drilling access.

When is the risk worth the reward? I see the forum has been discussing ANWR. Let's look at that for a moment - using 2005 estimates from the Department of Energy.

• We use 20.8 million barrels per day (8.3 million US/ 12.5 million imports).
• ANWR production estimates equal 780 thousand barrels per day.
• What is that, 3.9% of our total requirements? Or 6.2% of imports?
• Total oil production estimates range from 1.9 to 4.3 billion barrels. What is that, maybe 200 days worth?

To quote the Energy Information Administration: "The total production from ANWR would be between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030."
Using our Government's estimates, does the potential reward push us ahead to open ANWR and drill?

Yes it does. Because it isn't 100% it isn't enough?

And you can find better numbers than that if you look Leland...

Add that to offshore gulf drilling, Montana and Wyoming.. Oklahoma and Texas.

Stop the dependance on foriegn oil. That enriches (insert whatever name you want here).

And in the meantime let's have some of you smart people (cough cough) come up with something better.

And BTW Ron, how do you think the oil from your buddies in the mideast and elsewhere gets here?

On a magic fairy boat that doesn't ever leak? Maybe the front never falls off....

Idiot.

Yep, I have seen plenty of estimates that say ANWR could easily provide 1,000,000 barrels a day. That is 1,000,000 that we don't have to buy from the Saudis and / or Hugo Chavez.

Let me guess...those figures would be from the petroleum industry?

I won't argue that the figures coming out of places like Greenpeace would probably be around 1,000 bbl a day. But let's be real...those high figures are NOT coming from independent sources...just like the low figures aren't.

(For the record, just a quick search and I see estimates of total recoverable at 3-7 billion barrels. (The 7 billion is from the petroleum industry, of course).)

Hell, everyone has an agenda. The real figures are probably a composite average of all the ones you hear. Add to that the 4 billion barrels in eastern Montana, lots in Wyoming, North Dakota, and the shale oil of Colorado and Utah. There's no reason we couldn't be energy independent inside 15 years as long as that strategy included serious provisions for private and subsidized alternative energy research with a plan and very specific goals.

(No, Barack, not ethanol, dumbass)

If he wants to get it from seaweed...

We should probably save the oil we have easy access to for when shit hits the fan or WW3 starts and we're paying $8 bucks a gallon.

Then again, cats and dogs should be living in harmony by then and we'll be pushing daises (so everyone thinks)