How to break free of oil »
Posted By STONERS 2 months, 4 weeks ago in Business & FinanceWhen the Founding Fathers declared our independence, they could not have imagined that, 232 years later, the United States would be so spectacularly dependent on foreign countries. It would be roughly eight more decades before oil gushed from a well in Titusville, Pa., marking the beginning of the global oil economy.
Read Full Story at delawareonline.com »
Submitted By:
STONERS
I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it.. All welcome!!! ;~]
Add your ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 148
-
0%
STONERS2 months, 4 weeks ago
"Real energy independence can be achieved only through fuel choice and competition. That competition cannot take place as long as (according to the Department of Transportation) we continue to put 16 million new cars that run only on petroleum on our roads every year, each with an average street life of 16.8 years -- locking ourselves into decades more of petroleum dependence."
"So let's remember the saying: When in a hole, stop digging. If every new car sold in the United States were a flex-fuel vehicle and if millions of Americans could plug in electric cars, gasoline would be facing fierce competition at the pump and the socket. Moreover, our money would have migrated from Exxon to Pepco, from the Middle East to the Midwest -- as well as to scores of poor, biomass-producing countries in Africa, Latin America and South Asia, including countries that don't yet hate our guts.This is the road to independence."
Reply-
0%
BB642 months, 4 weeks ago
Reduce, cut back, etc. what a bunch of commie lefty crap from the 70's. Son, we're in a global economy now, we cut back someone will still buy. Again, this isn't the 70's. I'm in the energy world so I'll try to make this easy. Picture you work at Dunkin's, no offense. Last year you had a police station across the street but now you had two new police stations move in next door. So now instead of just having your old station, you now have 2 more. That's what happened to the oil markets. In the past it was the EU and USA. Now you have China and India using just as much and growing.
Reply -
0%
bigurn2 months, 4 weeks ago
Stoner, most of the countries in your article increased internal petroleum production. Only two switched to electricity.
Also, none of them have our Federalizing program for safety, economy or emissions. There are real technology barriers. Brazil is the closest to the U.S., and the last time I was there everything ran on gasoline - Brazilian gasoline.
Reply
-
0%
lum-chate2 months, 4 weeks ago
Here is a thought,let's drill for oil here in the US.
Not drilling here because it will take 5 years to retrieve is more stupid than idiotic. It's like a Major League team saying let's none participate in the draft because it will take 5 years to develop players.
It sure will reduce our ridiculous trade deficit which is as big a problem as the price of oil. By the way, the price of gasoline in Europes most prosperous countries is about $9.50/gall so 4.50/gall doesn't seem so bad! Anyone at this point in congess who is stopping us from drilling should resign Monday morning!
Besides that, 9 out of 10 caribou in the ANWAR area herd support drilling
Reply-
-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 4 weeks ago
"Besides that, 9 out of 10 caribou in the ANWAR area herd support drilling"
Why does the Right have such a hard-on for ANWR when the oil companies are sitting on thousands of oil leases they are not bothering to take advantage of?
Drilling in ANWR should be done very carefully and ONLY if we can get assurances that the oil derived therefrom is ONLY made available to the US.
Reply-
0%
Dionys2 months, 4 weeks ago
"Drilling in ANWR should be done very carefully and ONLY if we can get assurances that the oil derived therefrom is ONLY made available to the US."
Drilling in ANWR should never be done. Even if it 'should,' it certainly shouldn't be done until the oil companies take advantage of the oil leases they've been sitting on and receiving tax-breaks on for decades before even asking to drill in some of our last untouched places.
Reply -
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago
Vote republican, because burning more and more fossil fuel and drill drill drill more more more is the mantra of Exon, who's only motive is to make more and more and more money.
Vote republican, don't worry at all about Global Warming, becasue increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has nothing to do with rising global temperatures, we just need to drill more, burn more, more tax cuts for Exon, more cheap gas, more drilling in an endless spiral, because Exon is the only profit that matters, and we need cheap fuel for walmart to sell cheap chinese goods, and the military runs on cheap fuel, and the entire american economy is based on cheap fossil fuel, and that trumps choking the children any day. Vote republican!
Reply -
0%
BB642 months, 4 weeks ago
I'm as conservative as they come and couldn't give two ripps about that frozen zone of crap. I have a more reliable, less costly solution. In the late 1920's the Germans converted coal to a gas. The coal is ground into a slurry and that slurry is processed like crude oil. There's a little more to the process but it could be on line with in 24-30 months. We're building 9 plants in China and will be on line within that time frame. Current technology, not difficult.
Built by American workers, run by American workers, with the taxable profits staying in America. Has anyone else noted the American theme?
Reply
-
-
0%
Dionys2 months, 4 weeks ago
" Here is a thought,let's drill for oil here in the US. "
"Not drilling here because it will take 5 years to retrieve is more stupid than idiotic."
It'll take more than 10 years to see the first barrel.
The 'major impact' drilling in ANWR or offshore will have is one tenth of one percent of the international oil market -- in other words no impact whatsoever on price. Even if we could (and would) use the oil for the US only it would have an impact of about 4-7% of our yearly needs.
Better to spend all that money (and yes, the government does spend the money, not the oil companies for the most part) on alternative energy sources, increasing effeciency and companies that will actually do something to solve the problem rather than continue it.
Even a modest increase in efficency in a number of areas of energy use would easily surpass drilling in all these sensitive areas.
Reply-
0%
bigG2 months, 4 weeks ago
"Even a modest increase in efficency in a number of areas of energy use would easily surpass drilling in all these sensitive areas."
I read where the estimate of potential recoverable oil reserves in all of the areas now off limits to drilling was around 18 billion barrels. At our present rate of consumption, that would supply about 2.5 years by itself and then it would be gone. The answer has to be a combination of things including conservation and alternatives, not just drilling.
Reply -
0%
BB642 months, 4 weeks ago
I think we need to clarify a few statements you've made. First, conservation will cause a further down turn in all economical sectors. If running us from a mild recession to a full blown depression is your goal, then you're doing a fine job.
It is far less than 10 years to develop the oil fields and there is far more oil. There are many left leaning people creating "new data that no one else knows"... "proving" we should drill. It's almost entirely fake info based upon old data. On the 10 years, only if the Sierra Club gets involved.
We have many different products available to make gasoline. I'm in favor of converting coal, it's inexpensive and the technology exists. We can also use shale. It won't offer the sweet crude but it will offer a high sulfur, bitter crude, but we can use it. Biofuels are a total rip of as are solar and wind. It isn't a matter of money, we're peeing money left and right on research, the technology simply isn't there yet.
Reply
-
-
0%
vor2 months, 4 weeks ago
If we start now and drill with little restriction we might be able to add 5%-10% to our needed supplies in five years. Unless demand is greatly curtailed demand would easily swallow up that 5%-10%. Nor will it ever be easier to drill into the sea floor from a floating platform or from frozen tundra than to extract oil straight out of the desert. The Arabs will always win this cost equation. At least until they run out of oil.
Increased drilling is a canard. We need to find alternative sources. Our continued reliance on petroleum will only lead to more situations like Iraq where we act to protect our supposed interests only to find we have shot ourselves in the foot. Cheney never was a good shot but he didn't miss this time.
Reply -
0%
Wolfie20072 months, 4 weeks ago
Yeah, they will still be saying that 5, 10 or 20 years if we don't start now. If we had been drilling and adding to our reserves all along we wouldn't be in this mess now.
I want to know why we can't do it all. Wind, solar, electric cars and nuclear. Tell us why oh, liberal sages, why can't we drill and do the other stuff, too.
I know why, it's the liberal are afraid we might become energy independent.
Reply-
0%
Tangent0012 months, 4 weeks ago
We CAN drill and develop alternatives. The problem right now is the Oil companies are sitting on thousands of leases already. Also, we don't have the refining capacity since Big Oil mothballed refineries in the mid-90s to choke supply.
And no, it's not the PETA-philes that are keeping new refineries from being built either. Oil companies have only asked for ONE permit to build a refinery in the past several years, and that was granted.
Reply
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months, 4 weeks ago
Spoken like a good little pro-Exxon trooper. The problem is you have crossed over to being anti-American in your commitment to oil companies who only care about $$$$$$.
Reply -
0%
Lincoln852 months, 4 weeks ago
Let the caribau get a room like everyone else. It's not like the small footprint drilling will have will effect the millions of acres they can reproduce on. If someone found a cure for cancer from some fungi in the Mississippi River...some socialists leftist nut job group would protest it because it endangers the habitat of the red freckled river frog. There is a reason we are a republic and not a pure democracy..and that is to overrule cooks like these. Don't get me wrong..I love the red freckled river frog just as much as the next socialist...just saying.
Reply
-
-
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago
Exon is bigger than saudi arabia. Exon has been for years funding Charlatan political anti-global warming think tanks. Exon does not need america to make billions of profit a quarter. Exon paid its CEO a 350 million dollar bonus in 2006, which is more than all union members (9% of the amerian workforce) made in a year.
What Exon wants, Exon gets. That's the republican way. Exon and Israel. Send your children to death to preserve them. Jesus loves a good war profit.
Reply-
0%
simonsez2 months, 4 weeks ago
Exxon is the 14th largest oil company in the world. Most of the 13 ahead of it are much larger than Exxon.
"With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States , the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e, mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign."
Reply -
0%
1-2-Oscar2 months, 4 weeks ago
"Exon (sic) paid its CEO a 350 million dollar bonus in 2006, which is more than all union members (9% of the amerian workforce) made in a year."
According to the US Dept. of Labor's Jan. 25, 2008 summary, there are 15.7 million union members in the US. If they made as much as $23 each, then your statement is false.
Were you a math major?
Reply-
0%
BB642 months, 4 weeks ago
Once again you're playing with the DNC/Union play book. The evil CEO makes so much more than the over worked sweeper.... Tell you what, how much did you pay for taxes to the federal government? Exxon paid in over $30,000,000,000. That doesn't seem fair. That would put their taxable income bracket at 41%. So for all of their work, you feel it's okay for the government to charge 41% for doing nothing. Other than charging taxes.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2...
As to unions, I'm willing to bet the folks at the GM Janesville plant would like to talk to Senators Foolsgold and do nothing Kohl. Both like high gas prices so the little people can take public transport. Germany made public bus verses driving your own American made SUV. Yep, I bet the future former union members of GM would like to talk to a lot of their former friends at the Sierra Club DNC.
Reply
-
-
0%
jmopinion2 months, 4 weeks ago
Natural gas and hydrogen cars are definitely a short term answer if only congress would listen.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia2 months, 4 weeks ago
Congress won't listen
They are in the pockets of special interests
Congress needs to get out of the way and STOP picking winners and losers through subsidies
Everything needs to be encouraged and let the chips fall where they may
In the short term there needs to be more drilling while the alternatives are developed
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE2 months, 4 weeks ago
Of course. when in doubt help Exxon... and of course even when not in doubt.
Reply
-
0%
BB642 months, 4 weeks ago
Actually, not really. Natural gas would require congress to release more lands for drilling. Most of the unused lands currently leased are not worth drilling. In most cases, there's nothing to drill for. Transport is always a problem.
On hydrogen, it seems like such an easy solution. To make hydrogen you simply use water and electricity and split the atoms. The problem, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen then the hydrogen will ever be able to produce. Transporting hydrogen is also a problem. It doesn't compress well. The tanks currently required to transport the gas often times is larger than the full size of a sedan's trunk. It will take time to develop the technology here.
Reply
-
-
0%
skeptic2712 months, 4 weeks ago
According to the Energy Information Administration's official energy statistics from the U.S. government our refineries have a total capacity of 17,593,847 barrels per day. They are currently operating at 17,225,797 or about 98%. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_...
You can drill all you want but if the refinery capacity isn't increased it won't increase our supply.
Reply-
-
0%
skeptic2712 months, 4 weeks ago
http://earth2tech.com/2008/07/14/pges-ceo-on-t-...
PG&E CEO Peter Darbee, at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group's Energy Summit at Stanford on Friday, told us that he was "concerned" about the plan unveiled last week by oil baron T. Boone Pickens to get the U.S. off oil. While reducing foreign oil consumption is the right thing to do, he said, the idea of replacing foreign oil with natural gas is a problematic one.
First of all, Darbee said, there isn't that much domestic natural gas to go around, and the foreign natural gas providers are the same ones that currently provide us with oil. And from a national security perspective, converting our cars to natural gas wouldn't change our energy-based security issues, he said; electric cars and hydrogen-based cars are a better alternative.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
kboy2 months, 4 weeks ago
Congress has not shown us any leadership in the last 20 years. They have tried to force us into smaller cars while the trucks get larger. The Greens are no better. They have blocked all fossil power plants except natural gas and then blocked the pipelines to deliver the natural gas. Both sides have blocked nuclear plants and electric transmission lines as well as drilling for oil in our coastal waters (China will now be drilling there for Cuba). Electric cars may be an answer. Place outlets at every parking meter and charge for parking and electric. Spend money for research and development grants for promising technology, not subsidizing inefficient stills and wind machines (idle 62% of the time)
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher2 months, 4 weeks ago
ACtually, congress has shown great leadership, for the rich. The income redistribution for the rich over the last 8 years was the greatest in the history of the world, with the exception that the rich no longer are bound by nations, they are international aristrocracy of billionaires and CEO's and drug Warloards and rock stars and military dictators whos money is not kept in their nations.
Reply
-
-
0%
simonsez2 months, 4 weeks ago
Why would we want to "break free" from oil? It's our natural fuel, stored below ground until we need it, used in thousands of products we depend on, formed over millions of years from all things that have ever lived. It's a gift, not a threat.
Jackson should work on Al Gore instead of Obama ...
Reply-
-
0%
MacR2 months, 4 weeks ago
But we will never break free from oil. You see the one thing we will need is lubricant. We make a synthetic version, but, this version is still a derivative from oil.
No what you want to say is we want to break free from using oil as a fuel sourc
-
-
