Crude Oil from Bugs?

[Andy]

We are in the Stone Age. You've got it exactly Bass Ackwards.

The progressive age is what Europe is doing and has been doing for decades. It's like you're promoting dragsleds over the wheel.

Burning nasty polluting smudgy fuels that are ruining our atmosphere and destroying National Security from dependance is preferable to longstanding renewable and clean energy? Really?

Oooga booga.

What the heck are you talking about? I've been to Europe... they use nuclear power, and petrol gas. Same as here. Ignorant people...

 

[Sihouette]

Be more specific.

France relies heavily on nuclear, other countries not.

Depends on where you go. I for one remember Chernobyl and would never promote that deadly cocktail over totally benign sources like hydro, geothermal and solar.

That was my favorite part of recent ad campaigns aimed to scare people into accepting "imminent need" to drill for oil domestically...the nuclear bit. Message: "Hey, either give us the oil we want to drill for, the environment be damned or we'll shove nuclear down your throats."

Newsflash: we're tired of BigOil shoving anything down our throats.

Fearmongering. Will they stop at nothing?

 

[PLC1]

Be more specific.

France relies heavily on nuclear, other countries not.

Depends on where you go. I for one remember Chernobyl and would never promote that deadly cocktail over totally benign sources like hydro, geothermal and solar.

That was my favorite part of recent ad campaigns aimed to scare people into accepting "imminent need" to drill for oil domestically...the nuclear bit. Message: "Hey, either give us the oil we want to drill for, the environment be damned or we'll shove nuclear down your throats."

Newsflash: we're tired of BigOil shoving anything down our throats.

Fearmongering. Will they stop at nothing?

Is this the Chernobyl you visited?

The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is teeming with life.

As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

 

[Andy]

Do you think that the news media has the goal of destroying America's use of oil, and returning us to the stone age?

Liberals in general.

$80 a barrel sounds pretty cheap by today's standards, and it seems likely that the price could go down when the volume goes up.

You are thinking way short term. Broaden your view of oil prices and you'll find that the price of crude oil has only been over $80/per barrel since Nov of '07. This means that this plant has only been profitable for aprox: 8 months. Again, if the price drops the plant ends up closed. There is absolutely no promise or guarantee that prices will remain high or low, or anything.

Even now we have private citizens drilling their own wells in their back yard, pumping oil. If this continues the crude oil will flood the market, and prices will drop like a rock.

Further, the only way that increasing volume, reduces costs, is by reducing profit margin. This plant can't reduce profit margin. They are barely making it as is.

Finely, they can't increase volume as it stand currently. The reason is because they don't have a variable fuel source. If your fuel is oil, you just dig more wells. If it's wood, you just chop more trees. If you need Iron or Tin or some metal, there's tons of it, just purchase more.

But In this case, the fuel source is animal waste from a turkey or live stock slaughter house. You simply can't get more fuel from them, than they churn out in a day. Further, you can't order from across the nation because shipping the waste to your plant costs big $$ that cuts into profits, which is why they located the plant right next to the slaughter house.

I wonder what might happen if the feds were to stop subsidizing corn ethanol, and use the money to fund research into the process of making oil out of waste?

Nothing. Research into alternative fuels of this nature, are already privately funded. This odd idea that tossing more money at it, will fix everything, is a farce. Further, they are already subsidized according to both articles. So they are already being funded, and nothing more is happening. Which makes my point.

Further, all subsidies should be ended anyway, it's unconstitutional.

 

[Andy]

OK silly. Let me be more specific: some people in Oregon, not the entire state as one solid mindset, are looking into deep bore geothermal.

However, as I said, with as much surface or near-surface geological features in the West particularly, there will be no deep drilling at all.

Little bitty Iceland is handily tapping this easy and perpetual clean source of energy. It's just downright embarassing that the US claims it's too hard...

Who do they think they're pulling the wool over with that claim?

You show me where anyone anywhere claimed Geothermal power is 'too hard'? Do you want to know who hates geothermal power? It's liberals. Eco-nutz to be specific. They are the ones against Geothermal power. Do you know anything about the topic of which you speak?

 

[PLC1]

Liberals in general.

You're ascribing quite a goal to an undefined and disparate group of poeple, it seems to me. Just what is your definition of "liberal" anyway?

And, do you really believe that returning to the stone age is anyone's goal, or simply a possible result of the ideology they espouse?

You are thinking way short term. Broaden your view of oil prices and you'll find that the price of crude oil has only been over $80/per barrel since Nov of '07. This means that this plant has only been profitable for aprox: 8 months. Again, if the price drops the plant ends up closed. There is absolutely no promise or guarantee that prices will remain high or low, or anything.

Even now we have private citizens drilling their own wells in their back yard, pumping oil. If this continues the crude oil will flood the market, and prices will drop like a rock.

Further, the only way that increasing volume, reduces costs, is by reducing profit margin. This plant can't reduce profit margin. They are barely making it as is.

Finely, they can't increase volume as it stand currently. The reason is because they don't have a variable fuel source. If your fuel is oil, you just dig more wells. If it's wood, you just chop more trees. If you need Iron or Tin or some metal, there's tons of it, just purchase more.

But In this case, the fuel source is animal waste from a turkey or live stock slaughter house. You simply can't get more fuel from them, than they churn out in a day. Further, you can't order from across the nation because shipping the waste to your plant costs big $$ that cuts into profits, which is why they located the plant right next to the slaughter house.

You have a good point there. Should the price of oil go down, then the anything into oil idea will no longer be profitable. Should we develop our domestic supply, and thus cause the price to go down, then there won't be any justification for continuing to make our own oil. That, however, is speculative. It is more likely that the price of oil will stay high, and that we will continue to buy it from nations that hate us and wish us harm.

Oh, and the "anything into oil" idea is just that. It doesn't have to be made from turkey guts. It could be made from anything that happens to be available in significant quantities in any local area.

Not that making oil, or any other single idea is going to solve the energy problem, of course.

Nothing. Research into alternative fuels of this nature, are already privately funded. This odd idea that tossing more money at it, will fix everything, is a farce. Further, they are already subsidized according to both articles. So they are already being funded, and nothing more is happening. Which makes my point.

Further, all subsidies should be ended anyway, it's unconstitutional.

There, we agree. Of course, that unconstitutional subsidy of corn ethanol, along with a whole lot more subsidies that need to be ended, keep on going, don't they?

 

[Andy]

You're ascribing quite a goal to an undefined and disparate group of poeple, it seems to me. Just what is your definition of "liberal" anyway?

And, do you really believe that returning to the stone age is anyone's goal, or simply a possible result of the ideology they espouse?

Unbomber was pretty much an Earth in the Balance, anti-advancement eco-nut. He hate progress and development. His goal was to revert to a stone age type world. And I've met dozens of people who litterally support that idea.

But I would think you are right, that most support this regression based on their ideology. Not directly.

You have a good point there. Should the price of oil go down, then the anything into oil idea will no longer be profitable. Should we develop our domestic supply, and thus cause the price to go down, then there won't be any justification for continuing to make our own oil. That, however, is speculative. It is more likely that the price of oil will stay high, and that we will continue to buy it from nations that hate us and wish us harm.

Well, when the CEO of Exxon was determining whether to invest in alternative fuels, his state reason for not doing so was... the price of oil may go down, and Exxon would lose it's investment. So... there is no reason prices will stay high, or low or anything. Even oil CEOs claim they do not know what the price will do, and it's just as likely to drop as climb.

That also blows a hole in the stupid ignorant foolish liberal theory that all the oil CEOs are purposefully causing the high prices, because if they were, then they would have no fear in investing in high cost alternative energy sources.

Oh, and the "anything into oil" idea is just that. It doesn't have to be made from turkey guts. It could be made from anything that happens to be available in significant quantities in any local area.

True, but all the current 'waste to oil' programs have the same problems. Namely profitability.

There, we agree. Of course, that unconstitutional subsidy of corn ethanol, along with a whole lot more subsidies that need to be ended, keep on going, don't they?

Yeah, and they won't stop as long as we keep justifying them continuing. Remember, the Repugs eliminated farm subsidies, and as soon as the liberals got back the majority, we have them again. It's just a matter of making the case and sticking to our guns.

 

[PLC1]

Unbomber was pretty much an Earth in the Balance, anti-advancement eco-nut. He hate progress and development. His goal was to revert to a stone age type world. And I've met dozens of people who litterally support that idea.

If you think of the Unabomber as the typical "liberal", then no wonder you hate liberals so much. Just what percent of the population do you think actually espouse his ideals?

But I would think you are right, that most support this regression based on their ideology. Not directly.

I'm not so sure anyone supports regression, but they do support ideologies that could result in regression.

Well, when the CEO of Exxon was determining whether to invest in alternative fuels, his state reason for not doing so was... the price of oil may go down, and Exxon would lose it's investment. So... there is no reason prices will stay high, or low or anything. Even oil CEOs claim they do not know what the price will do, and it's just as likely to drop as climb.

That also blows a hole in the stupid ignorant foolish liberal theory that all the oil CEOs are purposefully causing the high prices, because if they were, then they would have no fear in investing in high cost alternative energy sources.

If guys like the Unabomber are the only ones espousing the idea that CEOs are purposedully causing high prices, then there is little credence to that idea. I suspect that those few who rant about the evil oil industry are simply doing so for political points, and to draw attention from the real challenges we face. If one or two real extremists make noises about "nationalizing the industry", we need to take their opinions as just that: The ranting of a small minority.

True, but all the current 'waste to oil' programs have the same problems. Namely profitability.

Yes, that is the problem. Of course, should the price remain high, then profitability won't be a concern, and we'll see more such plants, which, ironically, could depress the price of oil and cut their profit margins.

What we have is an interesting dilemma. Should the industry guess that prices will remain high, and put its money into alternative fuel and into exploiting the more expensive to develop reserves, and be right, then they will profit. If they manage to produce enough oil to change the supply and demand equation, then their investments won't pay off and they'll lose. It's a gamble either way.

It's a lot like farming. The farmers plant a crop, are unusually successful in producing that crop, and lose money because of lower prices due to high supply. I've seen it happen over and over here in farming country.

Yeah, and they won't stop as long as we keep justifying them continuing. Remember, the Repugs eliminated farm subsidies, and as soon as the liberals got back the majority, we have them again. It's just a matter of making the case and sticking to our guns.

The Repugs eliminated farm subsidies? I must have missed that one. Was it during the liberal Repug domination of Congress and the WH from '00 to '06, or are you talking about something that happened a long time ago when the Democraps were liberals and the Repugs were conservatives?

 

[Andy]

If you think of the Unabomber as the typical "liberal", then no wonder you hate liberals so much. Just what percent of the population do you think actually espouse his ideals?

Not the same methods though. Liberals pass industry destroying legislation instead of passing bombs. Same ideals.

If guys like the Unabomber are the only ones espousing the idea that CEOs are purposedully causing high prices, then there is little credence to that idea. I suspect that those few who rant about the evil oil industry are simply doing so for political points, and to draw attention from the real challenges we face. If one or two real extremists make noises about "nationalizing the industry", we need to take their opinions as just that: The ranting of a small minority.

Actually believe they really want to destroy the industry. Remember Pol Pot and the killing fields? It was a socialist philosophy of "returning to the old ways", an anti-progression. People with eye glasses were slaughtered because they were 'advanced'.

Yes, that is the problem. Of course, should the price remain high, then profitability won't be a concern, and we'll see more such plants, which, ironically, could depress the price of oil and cut their profit margins.

And lower the price of oil, killing the bio-fuel industry. It's a plant they may work itself out of a job. Of course, there is still hope they can lower cost somehow. Time will tell.

What we have is an interesting dilemma. Should the industry guess that prices will remain high, and put its money into alternative fuel and into exploiting the more expensive to develop reserves, and be right, then they will profit. If they manage to produce enough oil to change the supply and demand equation, then their investments won't pay off and they'll lose. It's a gamble either way.

Not really. Oil companies should produce oil. If they do, there's no gamble since oil will ALWAYS be in demand.

The Repugs eliminated farm subsidies? I must have missed that one. Was it during the liberal Repug domination of Congress and the WH from '00 to '06, or are you talking about something that happened a long time ago when the Democraps were liberals and the Repugs were conservatives?

Part of the 1996 Repug congress, in an effort to cut federal spending (shocking), they passed the Freedom to Farm Act, which in part was a deal that over 7 years, subsidies would be gradually eliminated.

However, in 2002, while under Democrap control, and with a number of lame Liberal Repugs, the Democraps passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, which completely dismantled the phase out of subsidies.

32 Democraps, and 12 Repugs voted for the bill. I couldn't find a more complete roll call. The 12 repugs included a lot of liberals, like Jumpin Jim Jefferds.

 

[PLC1]

Not the same methods though. Liberals pass industry destroying legislation instead of passing bombs. Same ideals.



Actually believe they really want to destroy the industry. Remember Pol Pot and the killing fields? It was a socialist philosophy of "returning to the old ways", an anti-progression. People with eye glasses were slaughtered because they were 'advanced'.

It is just a bit of a stretch to say that Pol Pot and his regime were "liberals", especialy while saying that all Democrats and many Republicans are also "liberals." I think your definition of the term is somewhat elastic.

And I don't think that it is part of the platform of the Democrats, nor the intent of liberal Republicans, to destroy industry. Why would anyone want to do that?

And lower the price of oil, killing the bio-fuel industry. It's a plant they may work itself out of a job. Of course, there is still hope they can lower cost somehow. Time will tell.

It seems likely that increased size of plants and further research will be able to lower costs. Maybe not, but it does seem like a good bet.

Not really. Oil companies should produce oil. If they do, there's no gamble since oil will ALWAYS be in demand.

Yes, it will always be in demand, but not necessarily at a profitable price.

Part of the 1996 Repug congress, in an effort to cut federal spending (shocking), they passed the Freedom to Farm Act, which in part was a deal that over 7 years, subsidies would be gradually eliminated.

However, in 2002, while under Democrap control, and with a number of lame Liberal Repugs, the Democraps passed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, which completely dismantled the phase out of subsidies.

32 Democraps, and 12 Repugs voted for the bill. I couldn't find a more complete roll call. The 12 repugs included a lot of liberals, like Jumpin Jim Jefferds.

I didn't know that. It is amazing to me that the Congress was able to pass such an act in the first place, and get Clinton to sign it. It's no surprise that it was dismantled. There must have been huge pressure from the farm lobby.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think that it is part of the platform of the Democrats, nor the intent of liberal Republicans, to destroy industry.

Democrats and liberal Republicans will greatly raise taxes on all industry, they are openly saying so: Cap and Trade

Thats code for Tax and Spend: Tax the Industries and Spend their money.
The consumer gets stuck holding the bag on both ends....

Additionally, Democrats are pushing for Profits taxes on Oil Companies - Those who don't know their history.... Vote Democrat.

It may not be a platform for destruction but its definitely not a pro-growth, pro-business environment Democrats are seeking to create.

When did Democrats abandon Capitalism? I haven't heard one say anything nice about it for years, instead its about how the free market is a failure or corrupt... As though politicians are somehow less corrupt and not monumental in their failures.