jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton didn't veto ANWR, we'd be getting that oil now.

Or it would have been already expended if they actually tapped ANWR. The oil companies have oil leases on something like 70 million federal acres that they aren't doing anything with (exploring, developing, drilling, etc.). The whole ANWR thing is mostly about the oil companies wanting to get their way, that they trump federal agreements, that they have the power to dictate policy. If the politicos really want to do something about the price of crude/gas... close the Enron and foreign exchange loopholes in our commodities regulations. Like that will happen.

I don't understand why we can't just put it all on a big rocket and hurl it into the sun.

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

I dunno. Not that Penn and Teller are experts, but that video TRT linked to a while back made it seem like some smart people have put some pretty good thinking into pretty much every aspect of the nuclear fuel storage issue.

Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.

If Europe can use nuclear power so effectively, why can't we?

Europe does a lot of things.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

I dunno. Not that Penn and Teller are experts, but that video TRT linked to a while back made it seem like some smart people have put some pretty good thinking into pretty much every aspect of the nuclear fuel storage issue.

Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.

If Europe can use nuclear power so effectively, why can't we?

Plus our technology and safety equipment for nuclear power is sooooo much better nowadays. More people have died from coal mining and oil drilling than has ever died from nuclear accidents.

The Red Tornado wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

I dunno. Not that Penn and Teller are experts, but that video TRT linked to a while back made it seem like some smart people have put some pretty good thinking into pretty much every aspect of the nuclear fuel storage issue.

Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.

If Europe can use nuclear power so effectively, why can't we?

Plus our technology and safety equipment for nuclear power is sooooo much better nowadays. More people have died from coal mining and oil drilling than has ever died from nuclear accidents.

Right--you can talk about the problems associated with nuclear power, waste and so forth. But you also need to consider the fact that coal, oil, and gas powered generators also produced toxic wastes and do signficant environmental harm.

TenuredVulture wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

I dunno. Not that Penn and Teller are experts, but that video TRT linked to a while back made it seem like some smart people have put some pretty good thinking into pretty much every aspect of the nuclear fuel storage issue.

Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.

If Europe can use nuclear power so effectively, why can't we?

Plus our technology and safety equipment for nuclear power is sooooo much better nowadays. More people have died from coal mining and oil drilling than has ever died from nuclear accidents.

Right--you can talk about the problems associated with nuclear power, waste and so forth. But you also need to consider the fact that coal, oil, and gas powered generators also produced toxic wastes and do signficant environmental harm.

I think that's my point about the technical aspects of evaluating energy policy alternatives.

It certainly had nothing specifically to do with nuclear energy.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You're right. That part has been ignored completely. Let's call the whole thing off.

jersey, there's no disputing you're a resident authority on the political ramifications of energy policy utterances.

on the technical matters, it's embarrassingly clear you're in as far over your head as the rest of us.

I dunno. Not that Penn and Teller are experts, but that video TRT linked to a while back made it seem like some smart people have put some pretty good thinking into pretty much every aspect of the nuclear fuel storage issue.

Beyond that point, we have nuclear power plants in this country at the moment, which hasn't led to any real problems since Three Mile Island twenty nine years ago, which didn't even kill anyone.

If Europe can use nuclear power so effectively, why can't we?

Because they have socialized medicine, six weeks paid, and three hour lunches. I'm ready!

Oh. Wait. I already that stuff. Though would like to pay less for my health coverage.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton didn't veto ANWR, we'd be getting that oil now.

Or it would have been already expended if they actually tapped ANWR. The oil companies have oil leases on something like 70 million federal acres that they aren't doing anything with (exploring, developing, drilling, etc.). The whole ANWR thing is mostly about the oil companies wanting to get their way, that they trump federal agreements, that they have the power to dictate policy. If the politicos really want to do something about the price of crude/gas... close the Enron and foreign exchange loopholes in our commodities regulations. Like that will happen.

To dispute your DNC provided talking point, most of the 68 million acres are leases the oil companies will lose because they boiught them on speculation and they didn't have any oil or enough oil to be worthwhile. If they had land that had oil, they would be getting it.

Rococo4 wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If Clinton didn't veto ANWR, we'd be getting that oil now.

Or it would have been already expended if they actually tapped ANWR. The oil companies have oil leases on something like 70 million federal acres that they aren't doing anything with (exploring, developing, drilling, etc.). The whole ANWR thing is mostly about the oil companies wanting to get their way, that they trump federal agreements, that they have the power to dictate policy. If the politicos really want to do something about the price of crude/gas... close the Enron and foreign exchange loopholes in our commodities regulations. Like that will happen.

To dispute your DNC provided talking point, most of the 68 million acres are leases the oil companies will lose because they boiught them on speculation and they didn't have any oil or enough oil to be worthwhile. If they had land that had oil, they would be getting it.

The leases (obtained in 1998 and 1999) are for 25 years and are renewable. Most of the leased acreage is offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and hasn't even been explored. Estimates for one of the lease grids is between 140-400 million barrels. The oil industry claims they haven't even begun exploration because there is a labor shortage. Perhaps a reason is they are awaiting the results of their pending lawsuit against the Interior Department which challenges the ID’s authority to impose price thresholds. They are also seeking a more generous royalty relief agreement with the federal government. The GAO estimates the federal government is losing around $50 billion in royalties because of the "stalling".

BTW, we may have the largest oil field on the planet right here in America (possibly twice that of Saudi Arabia), and it isn't in Alaska. Problem is/was, we didn't have adequate enough technology to maximize output until recently, and it costs a little more to get it than from the traditional oil field, so at $50/barrel it wasn't as appealing from a cost to profit perspective.

I'm trying to get that oil {cough}

I've said my piece on energy policy before, but since hoya invoked me a few pages back, I'll briefly say it again. Keep in mind I'm no expert and have no technical knowledge.

The status quo obviously isn't working, so there is some political breathing room for big changes. Unfortunately, we're dealing with conflicting goals and imperfect information, as always, and at least one side and arguably both are more interested in scoring political points than solving the real problem.

Still, the potential for a grand compromise that would move the debate forward is obviously present, and it would look something like this:

--Expanded domestic exploration and production. (My belief is that this is largely irrelevant to the problem-solving, but it would give certain lobbyists and oil-servicing Congress types a jolly, and the Alaskans want it so by federalism principles, they should have it. And maybe it gives us a little leverage in foreign policy or price negotiations.)

--Embrace of nuclear power capacity development. See the points about France; it can be done, and even the most venal "pro-business" pols probably would be terrified to apply their, um, mining industry regulatory standard in a field where if something goes really wrong, thousands die and whole regions start glowing green.

--Re-regulation of the energy industry. No more Enron shenanigans; this whole setup only works if the public trusts the rates they're paying.

--Much higher fuel standards.

--Huge new federal investment in Amtrak and urban transit systems, with a goal toward a net reduction in auto traffic over the next president's term.

The somewhat painful irony here is that a deal along these lines is probably more likely with McCain facing a Democratic Congress than under a unified Democratic federal government. I don't trust Obama to rein in the more grandiose instincts of the congressional Dems, and I don't believe the Boehner/McConnell crew in Congress would prefer good policy passing to stalemate that's bad for the country but arguably better for them politically.

Drilling is part of the answer, along with a whole host of other things. The Chamber of Commerce put out a 13 point plan calling on Congress and the White House to address to solve our country's energy policy. It got pretty good bipartisan support, and obviously it's a little more business oriented than something that'll ever pass this Congress, but I think it's the right idea. There's enough in the energy debate that everyone can get something they want. If dajafi and I can agree on a basis for a plan, Congress should be able to.

Any "answer" that contains the world "oil" isn't really an answer. Its a band-aid.

Sullivan on why the presidential race is "surprisingly" close:

The shift away from the GOP is pronounced everywhere (democracy hasn't failed completely) and few doubt that the Dems could make big gains in both House and Senate this fall. So the threat of the kind of Republican agenda that propelled Bush from 2002 to 2006 is much diminished. McCain, moreover, is not so bad a figure to deal with a Democratic Congress from the perspective of many independent voters, especially since the Congress is pretty much reviled as well. So the choice becomes an all-Democratic government, headed by a senator whose newness is still one of the most striking things about him - or an old war horse who ticked off all the right Republicans at one point or other and who was more right about the sruge than Obama. Obama's hopes for a landslide therefore rest on the chance that economic distress will now do to the public mood what Iraq once did - and make bold change seem necessary.

Granting that it's usually a bad idea to extrapolate from one's own views, I think there's something to this: if even I'm nervous about giving the Democrats the keys to the whole federal government, others must be as well. Though I guess it's a valid question as to whether the average voter, with his/her lesser focus on structural issues, really ponders factors like this.

dajafi wrote:The somewhat painful irony here is that a deal along these lines is probably more likely with McCain facing a Democratic Congress than under a unified Democratic federal government. I don't trust Obama to rein in the more grandiose instincts of the congressional Dems, and I don't believe the Boehner/McConnell crew in Congress would prefer good policy passing to stalemate that's bad for the country but arguably better for them politically.

I took Obama's tentative indication that he might be open to some variant of offshore drilling to be both a reflection of poll-watching and an early signal that Nancy Pelosi will not call the energy tune during his admin

This is awesome:

The son of Colorado GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is causing his dad a little embarrassment on the campaign trail this week.

Nineteen-year-old Justin Schaffer publicly apologized for putting up posters on his Facebook page including one declaring "Slavery Gets Shit Done."

Also among the Facebook page additions are some that mock Barack Obama, painting him as Muslim, an elitist, a homosexual, terrorist and comparing the presumptive Democratic candidate for president to the cereal-box character "Count Chocula."

The page also includes several pro-gun images. One "bumper sticker" shows an image of Jesus holding an M-16 in front of a Confederate flag, with the words "What Would Republican Jesus Do?" Another features a bevy of different kinds of guns with the words, "Celebrate Diversity" underneath.
...
"Cap'n Bootyplunder," as one friend referred to the younger Schaffer in a wall post, is just 19, yet a number of his "bumper stickers" refer to drinking games and alcohol. His interests include "being cool, girls."

And his dad was one of Jack Abramoff's very favorite congresscritters. Charming bunch all 'round.

What's wrong with 19 year olds drinking and getting laid? I mean, maybe he's not really getting laid at all, and just talking a big game. That would be embarrassing. And yeah, guys who talk a lot about getting laid in my experience don't. So, ok, the guys a flaming closet case.

OMFG! He goes to Dayton!

How is that awesome? The kid is 19. Who gives a shit what's on his facebook page?

jerseyhoya wrote:How is that awesome? The kid is 19. Who gives a $#@! what's on his facebook page?

The acorn don't fall far from the tree?