Comments on: Big Oil Ties Could Hurt GOP

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:33:01 +0000

All I'm really saying is that in the decade, at least, that it takes for oil to start flowing that we can't even currently refine, we could have invested time and money into green energy instead of perpetuating the legacy of fossil fuels, further worsening our addiction to dirty energy, and further deteriorating our planet.

By: phuyay

phuyay — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:57:12 +0000

AJM8127 I'm ready for the transition to other sources, but I haven't heard of any. Ethanol cannot be sent through existing pipe lines. solar is too expnsive, the automobile makers cannot make enough hybrids, there is no viable electric car. Please tell me what we should use to power the economy until alternatives are ready? We can only conserve so much. After that, there can be no room for growth. I'm not against alternatives for energy, but I don't see any on the horizon. One other point, look at Brazilian ethanol and its advantages and compare it to our highly subsidized and inefficient ethanol industry. Congress placed a .54 cent pe gallon tariff on the product along with a .51 cent per gallon subsidy to keep the industry alive. The subsidy alone costs Americans billions. If the Democrats were serious about helping average Americans, they would allow for this product to enter the country. The subsidy going to domestic ethanol producers comes close to what we are giving to the oil companies. With domestic ethanol, it is all political.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:00:44 +0000

One more thing. You say yourself that the economy is powered by oil. From trucks to trains to farm machinery, you are right. Don't you think it is dangerous to have such s single track system in place? Wouldn't it be wise in the sense of national security to diversify the source of energy for the economy? There was an oil crisis in the 1970's. There is an oil crisis now. Even if we drill off shore, there will be an oil crisis again. Oil was great in its time. It was cheap, and reliable. Oil's time is now over. We have to move on, to evolve our energy sources towards clean, renewable ones. Our economy and environment depend on it.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:45:36 +0000

Phuyay, you have to look at this facts. First, the land wouldn't even be able to be leased to the oil companies until 2012. Second, there is already so much land leased to the oil companies, they don't have the resources to drill on it all. Nor do they have the resources to even scout it out, to look for places to drill. Third, the oil drilled off shore is thick crude, not the light sweet crude the American refineries can refine. Making use of this oil domestically would mean a retooling of refineries stateside before it could be turned into anything. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling is simply a tactic by the GOP to try and win an election. It is not a viable source of energy for the American people.

By: phuyay

phuyay — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:27:45 +0000

What does Pelosi expect us to use for energy if we don't drill? There are no suitable alternatives large enough to take oil's place plus they have their own negatives. We also use oil in consumer products like plastics and other items. We can't escape using our coal and oil resources as part of an overall energy policy. If she is too stubborn to realize this, then she must be replaced with a more rational leader. The Democrat solution is to give citizens money we don't have to buy energy and to tax the very companies that produce it. We would be better if we allowed the market system and “greedy capitalists” to find the energy we need. After all, that is the system we have been using and it works. There are no gas lines a la the 1970s that resulted from an Arab embargo. Let Pelosi have her way and all you yong liberals and tree huggers will experience the joy of no oil, long lines and runaway inflation. That is what happens when there is no oil to run the economy.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

All I’m really saying is that in the decade, at least, that it takes for oil to start flowing that we can’t even currently refine, we could have invested time and money into green energy instead of perpetuating the legacy of fossil fuels, further worsening our addiction to dirty energy, and further deteriorating our planet.

By: phuyay

phuyay — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

AJM8127 I’m ready for the transition to other sources, but I haven’t heard of any. Ethanol cannot be sent through existing pipe lines. solar is too expnsive, the automobile makers cannot make enough hybrids, there is no viable electric car. Please tell me what we should use to power the economy until alternatives are ready? We can only conserve so much. After that, there can be no room for growth. I’m not against alternatives for energy, but I don’t see any on the horizon. One other point, look at Brazilian ethanol and its advantages and compare it to our highly subsidized and inefficient ethanol industry. Congress placed a .54 cent pe gallon tariff on the product along with a .51 cent per gallon subsidy to keep the industry alive. The subsidy alone costs Americans billions. If the Democrats were serious about helping average Americans, they would allow for this product to enter the country. The subsidy going to domestic ethanol producers comes close to what we are giving to the oil companies. With domestic ethanol, it is all political.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

One more thing. You say yourself that the economy is powered by oil. From trucks to trains to farm machinery, you are right. Don’t you think it is dangerous to have such s single track system in place? Wouldn’t it be wise in the sense of national security to diversify the source of energy for the economy? There was an oil crisis in the 1970’s. There is an oil crisis now. Even if we drill off shore, there will be an oil crisis again. Oil was great in its time. It was cheap, and reliable. Oil’s time is now over. We have to move on, to evolve our energy sources towards clean, renewable ones. Our economy and environment depend on it.

By: ajm8127

ajm8127 — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Phuyay, you have to look at this facts. First, the land wouldn’t even be able to be leased to the oil companies until 2012. Second, there is already so much land leased to the oil companies, they don’t have the resources to drill on it all. Nor do they have the resources to even scout it out, to look for places to drill. Third, the oil drilled off shore is thick crude, not the light sweet crude the American refineries can refine. Making use of this oil domestically would mean a retooling of refineries stateside before it could be turned into anything. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling is simply a tactic by the GOP to try and win an election. It is not a viable source of energy for the American people.

By: phuyay

phuyay — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

What does Pelosi expect us to use for energy if we don’t drill? There are no suitable alternatives large enough to take oil’s place plus they have their own negatives. We also use oil in consumer products like plastics and other items. We can’t escape using our coal and oil resources as part of an overall energy policy. If she is too stubborn to realize this, then she must be replaced with a more rational leader. The Democrat solution is to give citizens money we don’t have to buy energy and to tax the very companies that produce it. We would be better if we allowed the market system and “greedy capitalists” to find the energy we need. After all, that is the system we have been using and it works. There are no gas lines a la the 1970s that resulted from an Arab embargo. Let Pelosi have her way and all you yong liberals and tree huggers will experience the joy of no oil, long lines and runaway inflation. That is what happens when there is no oil to run the economy.