PDA

View Full Version : Giant Turd Blocks Keystone Pipeline



soonercruiser
3/2/2012, 02:10 PM
Can't get any better than this!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/ObamaTurdclogspipeline.jpg

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/ObamaTurdclogspipeline.jpg

XingTheRubicon
3/2/2012, 02:15 PM
Sometimes William Bandy says no.

ictsooner7
3/2/2012, 02:24 PM
Keystone Oil Pipeline Seen Raising Gas Prices in Midwest: Energy

The purpose of the $7.6 billion Keystone is to move 830,000 barrels of oil a day from landlocked Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast, obtaining new customers and a higher price for heavy Canadian crude, Canadian regulators said in a 2010 report. The oil sold for $23.38 less per barrel in 2011 compared with heavy grades of Mexican crude, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“The Canadian plan was to use their market power to raise prices in the United States (UNG) and get more money from consumers,” Philip Verleger, founder of Colorado-based energy consulting firm PK Verleger LLC, said in an interview. Prices may gain 10 to 20 cents in central states, he said.

and again.........

Republicans including presidential candidates Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have criticized President Barack Obama’s Jan. 18 rejection of Keystone XL after Nebraskans raised concerns about the pipeline polluting their groundwater.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/keystone-oil-pipeline-seen-raising-gas-prices-in-midwest-energy.html

soonercruiser
3/2/2012, 02:36 PM
Not need for you to get "up to date", ict, huh?

2 months ago the Gov. of Nebraska held a public news conference saying that Nebraska has "resolved" their concers with TransCanada!
But, I guess the news that you get didn't cover that.

soonercruiser
3/2/2012, 02:42 PM
Keystone Pipeline Could Bring Gas Prices Down For Oklahomans
http://www.news9.com/story/17031604/keystone-pipeline-could-bring-gas-prices-down-for-oklahomans


Keystone XL Project:
The Truth Behind the Oil
Pipeline Controversy
Oil & Energy Investor is a newsletter that delivers stock market news and investment advice from around the world directly to your inbox...

Oil company CEOs predict astronomical oil prices if it isn't built...

Environmentalists say it will poison the tap water of the entire Midwest...

And the Obama administration just wants to stuff the whole mess in the closet until after election season...

But Dr. Kent Moors can tell you what's really behind the Keystone XL pipeline controversy.

He would know...

He's the world's foremost expert on the global oil industry

Major energy firms and petro-finance companies in more than 25 countries have sought his expertise.

His deep understanding and comprehensive knowledge of the energy markets are sought after by high-ranking energy officials in the U.S., UK and Russia...

In other words, the "who's who" of global energy keeps him on 24/7 speed dial.

And in his latest report, Dr. Moors explains the Keystone XL Pipeline controversy clearly, concisely and without bias - taking on the vital questions no one else will answer, including:

•How the delays will impact oil (and gas) prices for regular Americans.

•Why Canadian oil sands are suddenly so important to our energy future.

•Where U.S. oil companies will look to make up the supply-side shortfall if the pipeline doesn't go in.

•Which companies (and their stock prices) will be hardest hit by the delay.

•And what happens if a reroute for the pipeline becomes inevitable.
This new report by Dr. Moors is essential reading for understanding the Keystone XL pipeline from an "insider" perspective.
http://oilandenergyinvestor.com/ppc/Keystone_XL_Pipeline_20120123.php?code=X3KMNC00&gclid=COyetOL7yK4CFQ8yhwodfxIRBQ

hawaii 5-0
3/2/2012, 02:47 PM
I like that word 'could'.

I also like the words 'probably won't'.

5-0

ictsooner7
3/2/2012, 11:37 PM
Not need for you to get "up to date", ict, huh?

2 months ago the Gov. of Nebraska held a public news conference saying that Nebraska has "resolved" their concers with TransCanada!
But, I guess the news that you get didn't cover that.

NO you need to get up to date, it was Jan 24, not two months ago and the state route is STILL not appoved!!

Heineman Hopeful On Keystone

By GoJo Staff on February 29, 2012


(Lincoln, NE) – With congressional Republicans attempting to use the Keystone XL pipeline as a major issue against President Obama, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman(R) prefers the gentle nudging approach and he hopes he is seeing some positive signs from the White House.

During a news conference call Wednesday morning, Heineman said the decision by TransCanada, the developer of the project, to go ahead and build the Oklahoma to Texas branch of the pipeline is “very positive news.”

The major hold up in final approval for the project right now is the absence of a final state approved route through Nebraska. Heineman says he is supportive of proposed legislation in his state that would allow Nebraska officials to work with the U.S. State Department simultaneously to streamline the approval process and get construction on the full pipeline going as soon as possible.

The Obama administration has consistently said final approval is not possible until after the 2012 election, because of the time required to review and approve a new route.

Heineman says he takes the decision to build a southern leg of the project as a sign that “TransCanada is going to build it (the pipeline) from border to border and then say, Mr. President, all you have to approve is this little piece” that goes over the border.

It’s a variation on a proposal Heineman himself made about a month ago – suggesting that the President give “conditional approval” to the project so that construction could begin at both ends and finish in Nebraska once final state level approval is secured.

Heineman noted that the president’s reaction to the TransCanada decision was “very positive…so I hope he’s getting to ‘yes.’”

Republicans in Washington meantime are trying to use the president’s refusal to grant approval to the project as a means to argue he is not doing enough on job creation, energy independence and in recents days – higher gas prices.

Several midwestern governors have joined Heineman in calling on the president to reconsider his current position.

Also Wednesday, Heineman announced he will traveling to China at the end of July for a trade mission.

olevetonahill
3/3/2012, 12:16 AM
I like that word 'could'.

I also like the words 'probably won't'.

5-0

Kinda like "HOPE" and then of course "Change"

cleller
3/3/2012, 08:49 AM
If the pipeline causes gas prices to go up 10 cents here, it will still be better than the effect $6.00 gas on the coasts has on inflation. Costs of everything from produce to car parts would go up due to transport costs.

That gas spike thing is only a theory, anyway. The jobs, tax growth it would provide would grow the economy in the very places this phantom gas increase is supposed to happen.

OU_Sooners75
3/3/2012, 04:49 PM
Gotta love the idiots that think Obama does no wrong....


Fact: The pipeline would have created thousands of jobs.
Fact: The pipeline would have helped us control prices since Iran is making the world panic for oil.
Fact: The pipeline would have been better for the US than Canada giving that oil to China!

But hey, at least Obama **********s got their wish!

OU_Sooners75
3/3/2012, 04:52 PM
BTW, glad I got the gas yesterday when I did. While I was pumping gas, they were upping the price (I was the last at the price it was set before).

Went from 3.49/gallon to 3.59/gallon.

I live 19 miles from one of the larger landbased refineries in the continental US...and our gas prices are sky rocketing?

It is time for the US to open their own lands and say **** everyone else!

hawaii 5-0
3/3/2012, 04:59 PM
Kinda like "HOPE" and then of course "Change"


Funny how the only ones talking about home and change now are the ones who voted for the losers.

5-0

Chuck Bao
3/3/2012, 05:01 PM
Can I show some love for President Obama for wanting a little better detailed plan? Please? Pretty please?

Can I not love that a pipeline project is still going through from Oklahoma to oil refineries in Houston? Is that not good news for us? I remember a month or so ago that KXII TV (Ardmore, Sherman, Denison) reported that land owners in Texas were pretty upset about the pipeline going through their property. Too bad. Too sad. And, let the Canadian freeze for all I care.

diverdog
3/3/2012, 05:01 PM
Gotta love the idiots that think Obama does no wrong....


Fact: The pipeline would have created thousands of jobs.
Fact: The pipeline would have helped us control prices since Iran is making the world panic for oil.
Fact: The pipeline would have been better for the US than Canada giving that oil to China!

But hey, at least Obama **********s got their wish!

Your second sentence is not a fact. Not even close. Oil is traded on the world markets and whether that pipeline gets built or not it will not affect oil prices in the US. Secondly, the pipeline won't be close to being finished if Israel and Iran had go to war.

Your third sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

diverdog
3/3/2012, 05:04 PM
Can I show some love for President Obama for wanting a little better detailed plan? Please? Pretty please?

Can I not love that a pipeline project is still going through from Oklahoma to oil refineries in Houston? Is that not good news for us? I remember a month or so ago that KXII TV (Ardmore, Sherman, Denison) reported that land owners in Texas were pretty upset about the pipeline going through their property. Too bad. Too sad. And, let the Canadian freeze for all I care.

I have read that they really do not need to run the pipeline to the coast that we already have the infrastructure in the mid-west. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

To be honest there is so much politics on both sides of this issue I am having a very hard time sorting out the facts. What you said about land owners being upset is very true.

hawaii 5-0
3/3/2012, 05:08 PM
I'd like to see a list of all the people whose backyards and living rooms will be displaced by the easements.

Shouldn't be more than a thousand or so.


5-0

OU_Sooners75
3/3/2012, 05:11 PM
Your second sentence is not a fact. Not even close. Oil is traded on the world markets and whether that pipeline gets built or not it will not affect oil prices in the US. Secondly, the pipeline won't be close to being finished if Israel and Iran had go to war.

Your third sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

And it would have helped the US...not anyone else, help control what we get.

Yes, it is a world market, but if you do not think the demand from the US helps lower it, then you are crazier than I thought.

If the demand from the US goes down because we would be getting some extra from Canada, the price of oil goes down!

Of course the 3rd doesn't make sense to you...you are a left wing lib...so what china does doesn't matter to you.

Didn't Canada and China just agree to a multi-billion or trillion dollar energy contract?

yep, they did. So yes, that oil they were going to sell to the US just went to China!

OU_Sooners75
3/3/2012, 05:14 PM
I have read that they really do not need to run the pipeline to the coast that we already have the infrastructure in the mid-west. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

To be honest there is so much politics on both sides of this issue I am having a very hard time sorting out the facts. What you said about land owners being upset is very true.

I do know from Cushing, OK south there is already infrastructure in place. Not sure if it would be what they would use for the Keyston pipeline though.

Chuck Bao
3/3/2012, 05:25 PM
I'd like to see a list of all the people whose backyards and living rooms will be displaced by the easements.

Shouldn't be more than a thousand or so.


5-0

That's what I thought too. Yet, according to the local TV interviews, these land owners were pulling out all the stops. They're trying to get Native Americans involved in claiming that there are artifacts which haven't been fully excavated yet and the pipeline would destroy the reclamation of our distant heritage. Funny how that goes. What you got to trade for a few arrowheads?

Chuck Bao
3/3/2012, 05:28 PM
I do know from Cushing, OK south there is already infrastructure in place. Not sure if it would be what they would use for the Keyston pipeline though.

Good question. I don't know either. I also wouldn't be opposed to a second or third pipeline if it helps our state market more resources.

okie52
3/3/2012, 05:35 PM
I'd like to see a list of all the people whose backyards and living rooms will be displaced by the easements.

Shouldn't be more than a thousand or so.


5-0

If you were stupid enough to build your home on an easement then you and your banker/mtg company have some IQ issues.

Of course there are people in some places that build homes on volcanoes...go figure.

okie52
3/3/2012, 05:41 PM
Can I show some love for President Obama for wanting a little better detailed plan? Please? Pretty please?

Can I not love that a pipeline project is still going through from Oklahoma to oil refineries in Houston? Is that not good news for us? I remember a month or so ago that KXII TV (Ardmore, Sherman, Denison) reported that land owners in Texas were pretty upset about the pipeline going through their property. Too bad. Too sad. And, let the Canadian freeze for all I care.

The pipeline can't just go through somebody's property. The pipeline company would have had to secure a right of way or easement from the landowner or previous landowner in order to cross the property just like every utility company has to do. The people either bought the property already subject to the easement or they themselves granted one to the pipeline company.

Excluding eminent domain, of course, but I haven't heard of any of that for this pipeline.

Chuck Bao
3/3/2012, 06:00 PM
The pipeline can't just go through somebody's property. The pipeline company would have had to secure a right of way or easement from the landowner or previous landowner in order to cross the property just like every utility company has to do. The people either bought the property already subject to the easement or they themselves granted one to the pipeline company.

Excluding eminent domain, of course, but I haven't heard of any of that for this pipeline.

Actually the land owners were talking on the local TV about property that had been in their families for several generations and that eminent domain was being used. I don't know if that is true or not, but it isn't very hard to imagine that the route of the pipeline would get bogged down in a legal mess. I also don't know if the endorsement of the President would go very far in settling those cases.

diverdog
3/3/2012, 06:02 PM
And it would have helped the US...not anyone else, help control what we get.

Yes, it is a world market, but if you do not think the demand from the US helps lower it, then you are crazier than I thought.

If the demand from the US goes down because we would be getting some extra from Canada, the price of oil goes down!

Of course the 3rd doesn't make sense to you...you are a left wing lib...so what china does doesn't matter to you.

Didn't Canada and China just agree to a multi-billion or trillion dollar energy contract?

yep, they did. So yes, that oil they were going to sell to the US just went to China!

Next time you go to the gas pump take a look at it and tell me where the oil that produced the gas came from. I bet you can't. To sit there and say that the oil in this pipeline will make one iota of a difference in world or US oil prices is ridiculous. Oil is traded up to ten times on the commodity market and one of the big drivers is speculation the other being demand. The market is going to make the price not a pipeline.

The demand for US oil has been relatively flat for the last 4-5 years and because of that we have been exporting 150 million barrels gas and 239 million barrels of Diesel (2008). Diesel fuel in particular is more profitable in overseas markets than the US.

Third most of the oil we get right now comes from three countries Canada, Mexico and god forbid Venezuela.

Will the Keystone project create jobs....in the near term yes but it will not do a lot to alleviate the high unemployment rate. I don't care if the pipeline gets built or not but one thing I know for sure there is a lot of demagoguery on both sides of this issue.

Here are the facts as I see them:

1. The pipeline will create some good paying jobs for a few years then those jobs will be fewer after the pipeline is built.
2. There is potential for some environmental damage if it leaks and we need to be careful where it is built. Other than that I think the probability of a major spill is unlikely. It is not the monster the environmental community makes it out to be. Nor will it affect to any degree global warming.
3. The pipeline may make about a 10 cent local difference on fuel prices but on a national level it won't make difference. We are no more or no less secure with this pipeline being built.
4. A lot of that oil will be exported because Canada wants to be able to ship diesel overseas for greater profits.
5. The US is in a lot better shape to weather $5 a gallon gas prices than we were 5 years ago.
6. The most effective way to guarantee energy security in this nation is through conservation. It is cost effective and immediate.

diverdog
3/3/2012, 06:05 PM
Actually the land owners were talking on the local TV about property that had been in their families for several generations and that eminent domain was being used. I don't know if that is true or not, but it isn't very hard to imagine that the route of the pipeline would get bogged down in a legal mess. I also don't know if the endorsement of the President would go very far in settling those cases.

Bao you are right. Eminent domain is being used for a good chunk of this pipeline and that is why a lot of people are upset.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all

hawaii 5-0
3/3/2012, 06:08 PM
If you were stupid enough to build your home on an easement then you and your banker/mtg company have some IQ issues.

Of course there are people in some places that build homes on volcanoes...go figure.


The goverment/oil folks will do whatever they please.

Watch out for that roadgrader!!!

5-0

olevetonahill
3/3/2012, 06:14 PM
Funny how the only ones talking about home and change now are the ones who voted for the losers.

5-0

Funny how the Only ones ridiculing the Folks that Dint vote fer Obama are still Blaming Bush for everything

Chuck Bao
3/3/2012, 06:55 PM
Funny how the Only ones ridiculing the Folks that Dint vote fer Obama are still Blaming Bush for everything

I was an economist back then and scared ****less when Thai banks started blacklisting American and European banks. Whatever anyone may say about political tit-for-tat ****, that won't change that.

hawaii 5-0
3/3/2012, 07:03 PM
Funny how the Only ones ridiculing the Folks that Dint vote fer Obama are still Blaming Bush for everything


Naaah. I didn't blame him for ever'thang. Jes' most ever'thang.

I blame Obama for not standing up to the Do-Nothing House of Representatives and exposing them for preventing this Country's faster recovery. He was weak.

5-0

LiveLaughLove
3/3/2012, 07:18 PM
Naaah. I didn't blame him for ever'thang. Jes' most ever'thang.

I blame Obama for not standing up to the Do-Nothing House of Representatives and exposing them for preventing this Country's faster recovery. He was weak.

5-0

As opposed to the do nothing Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't even proposed a budget in, hmm, 1100 days or so now. I'm sure you hold their feet to the fire also right?

I guess for the House to be a do something House, they should just fall in line with Obama's wishes, and forget their actual heart felt political beliefs. That's always how liberals see true compromise. Republicans compromising their values.

cleller
3/3/2012, 07:22 PM
I blame Obama for not standing up to the Do-Nothing House of Representatives and exposing them for preventing this Country's faster recovery. He was weak.

5-0

Obama. Weak.

Other than that, he's been better than I expected.

olevetonahill
3/3/2012, 07:23 PM
Naaah. I didn't blame him for ever'thang. Jes' most ever'thang.

I blame Obama for not standing up to the Do-Nothing House of Representatives and exposing them for preventing this Country's faster recovery. He was weak.

5-0

I just laugh at you Loons from BOTH sides :single_eye:

OU_Sooners75
3/3/2012, 07:27 PM
Diverdog, I know being an idiot and overthinking things are two things you do best...but I'll try to dumb down my thinking....

If there is less demand for something, no matter where that something comes from, that is on the world market, or even the US market, then the price goes down.

Basic supply and demand economics.

So if Canada is putting more oil into the markets, the price comes down.


I know being stupid can be hard work, but you make it look easy!

diverdog
3/3/2012, 10:39 PM
Diverdog, I know being an idiot and overthinking things are two things you do best...but I'll try to dumb down my thinking....

If there is less demand for something, no matter where that something comes from, that is on the world market, or even the US market, then the price goes down.

Basic supply and demand economics.

So if Canada is putting more oil into the markets, the price comes down.


I know being stupid can be hard work, but you make it look easy!

Look, you have been on here personally attacking people for the better part of two weeks and many of us have held our tongues. What you know about economics can fit on the head of pin. So if you want to debate then leave the name calling on the side lines and debate.

Until then I would highly suggest you do some reading on how oil is priced and how speculation affects oil when demand is flat. You might be better off educating yourself and making some decent arguments than making yourself look like a fool.

olevetonahill
3/3/2012, 11:53 PM
Look d ou che bag, you have been on here personally attacking people for the better part of two weeks and many of us have held our tongues. What you know about economics can fit on the head of pin. So if you want to debate then leave the name calling on the side lines and debate.

Until then I would highly suggest you do some reading on how oil is priced and how speculation affects oil when demand is flat. You might be better off educating yourself and making some decent arguments than making yourself look like a fool.
I love a personal attack

hawaii 5-0
3/4/2012, 12:25 AM
I love a personal attack


It's sometimes hard to not smack around fellow Sooners.

Usually I just say my 2 cents and move along rather than carry on a 5 page rambling rant.

Life's too short and I have bikini lines that need to be inspected.

5-0

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/4/2012, 12:28 AM
I was an Keynsian/Marxist economist back then and scared ****less when I realized I had been a complete fool to think socialism is in synch with human nature...then, I decided I would stay joined with them, lest I have to change my ways.FIFY

SanJoaquinSooner
3/4/2012, 01:43 AM
Giant Turd Blocks Keystone...

by RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

3/3/2012, 09:28 PM





Giant Turd Blocks Keystone...

by RUSH LIMBAUGH

3/3/2012, 09:28 PM





RUSH LIMBAUGH'S Giant Turd

Blocks Keystone...

3/3/2012, 09:28 PM.




Giant Turd RUSH LIMBAUGH

Blocks Keystone...

3/3/2012, 09:28 PM

SanJoaquinSooner
3/4/2012, 01:43 AM
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! I apologize!!!!!!!!!!!

olevetonahill
3/4/2012, 03:38 AM
I love a personal attack


It's sometimes hard to not smack around fellow Sooners.

Usually I just say my 2 cents and move along rather than carry on a 5 page rambling rant.

Life's too short and I have bikini lines that need to be inspected.

5-0

lol

Turd_Ferguson
3/4/2012, 05:04 AM
Life's too short and I have bikini lines that need to be inspected.5-0You should just start tanning nekked...

diverdog
3/4/2012, 09:13 AM
I love a personal attack

My brutal Irish temper got the best of me last night. I was probably out of line and should have walked away from it.

hawaii 5-0
3/4/2012, 09:16 AM
You should just start tanning nekked...



Sun'll be up soon. Gotta get my eyes adjusted.

5-0

dwarthog
3/4/2012, 10:04 AM
If anyone is interested in doing some actual reading on the project.

This first link is a relatively short pro/con presentation absent of any demagoguery, political slant etc...

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/10/10/what-are-the-keystonexl-pipeline-risks-to-water-resources/


This second link is far more detailed as it is the results of the 2.5 year environmental impact study complete with input from all of the relevant alphabet government agencies with skin in the game, 11 federal including the EPA and one state agency.

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/2010Fset?OpenFrameSet&Frame=main&Src=%2Fclientsite%2Fkeystonexl.nsf%2Fe327883380bef e0b862571f60062011e%2F4dc174fc55845133062575390056 f387%3FOpenDocument%26AutoFramed

sappstuf
3/4/2012, 10:37 AM
If anyone is interested in doing some actual reading on the project.

This first link is a relatively short pro/con presentation absent of any demagoguery, political slant etc...

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/10/10/what-are-the-keystonexl-pipeline-risks-to-water-resources/


This second link is far more detailed as it is the results of the 2.5 year environmental impact study complete with input from all of the relevant alphabet government agencies with skin in the game, 11 federal including the EPA and one state agency.

http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/2010Fset?OpenFrameSet&Frame=main&Src=%2Fclientsite%2Fkeystonexl.nsf%2Fe327883380bef e0b862571f60062011e%2F4dc174fc55845133062575390056 f387%3FOpenDocument%26AutoFramed

That was completed on August 26th of 2011...

diverdog
3/4/2012, 10:55 AM
That was completed on August 26th of 2011...

Why do we need the northern expansion? Why not just expand from Cushing on down to the Gulf?

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/photo2-505x600.jpg

diverdog
3/4/2012, 10:58 AM
SINGAPORE (AP) -- Oil prices fell to below $107 a barrel Thursday in Asia after U.S. crude supplies grew more than expected amid weak gasoline demand.
Benchmark oil for April delivery was down 39 cents to $106.68 at late afternoon Singapore time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract rose 52 cents to $107.07 per barrel in New York on Wednesday.
Brent crude rose 2 cents to $122.68 per barrel in London.
The Energy Department said Wednesday that inventories of crude oil rose by 4.2 million barrels last week. Analysts were expecting an increase of just 1 million barrels. Demand for gasoline over the four weeks ended Feb. 24 was 6.7 percent lower than a year earlier, the department said.
Some analysts expect higher fuel costs will eventually undermine demand and push crude prices lower. U.S. retail gasoline prices rose to an average of $3.73 per gallon, 30 cents higher than a month ago.
Other economic indicators were more encouraging. The U.S. economy grew 3 percent in the fourth quarter, slightly more than the initial estimate of 2.8 percent. In another report, the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago said manufacturing in the Midwest region rose to a 10-month high in February.
The latest figures reinforce largely positive economic data from the U.S. during the last few months. Better than expected U.S. economic growth and moves by central banks to boost global money supply have helped push crude up to near $110 earlier this week from $75 in October.
Concern that tension over Iran's nuclear program could lead to an armed conflict and crude supply disruptions has also helped keep prices near nine-month highs. The U.S. and Europe are imposing sanctions on Iran while the Middle Eastern country has threatened to cut supplies to some countries and tensionshalt oil tankers passing through the Persian Gulf's Strait of Hormuz.
"Rising in the Middle East could easily add another $20 to $40 to oil prices," Bank of America Merrill Lynch said in a report. "A geopolitically prompted supply side shock is ultimately what most investors are concerned about."
In other energy trading, heating oil rose 0.2 cent to $3.21 per gallon and gasoline futures were steady at $3.26 per gallon. Natural gas fell 2.6 cents at $2.59 per 1,000 cubic feet.

dwarthog
3/4/2012, 11:43 AM
That was completed on August 26th of 2011...

The irony here is special.

Our progressive friends and their adherence to the truth according to science and scientific results suddenly find themselves coming up with all kinds of reasons why the science as delivered in this case was incorrect and inaccurate.

hawaii 5-0
3/4/2012, 02:30 PM
Where's the extension of the fuel line that runs to the 55 gal. drum in my carport?


5-0

cleller
3/4/2012, 03:13 PM
They should have done that pipeline right after the Louisiana Purchase, before it got so crowded along the route.

soonercruiser
3/4/2012, 10:57 PM
Sooooo....
We gonna blame Jefferson?

jkjsooner
3/5/2012, 10:47 AM
Bao you are right. Eminent domain is being used for a good chunk of this pipeline and that is why a lot of people are upset.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all

So, let me get this straight, Republicans now favor the use of eminent domain to further private interests. Got it.

I must have not remembered correctly when there was outrage over the Kelo vs City of New London case.


BTW, I'm okay with the pipeline but I'm not okay with hypocrisy.

REDREX
3/5/2012, 10:54 AM
So, let me get this straight, Republicans now favor the use of eminent domain to further private interests. Got it.

I must have not remembered correctly when there was outrage over the Kelo vs City of New London case.


BTW, I'm okay with the pipeline but I'm not okay with hypocrisy.----The pipeline will be a common carrier ---- charges regulated by the Gov't----Eminent domain has been used by all types of common carriers for over a hundred years--- They are going to cross the land not take it

jkjsooner
3/5/2012, 11:05 AM
----The pipeline will be a common carrier ---- charges regulated by the Gov't----Eminent domain has been used by all types of common carriers for over a hundred years--- They are going to cross the land not take it

What was done in New London wasn't new either but that didn't change the outcry we heard from the right. The argument was about the use of eminent domain to further private interest. That same argument applies directly here.

REDREX
3/5/2012, 11:09 AM
What was done in New London wasn't new either but that didn't change the outcry we heard from the right. The argument was about the use of eminent domain to further private interest. That same argument applies directly here.---Not even close to the same situation---New London took property----the pipeline will be given a right of way across the property

Midtowner
3/5/2012, 12:03 PM
---Not even close to the same situation---New London took property----the pipeline will be given a right of way across the property

An easement is actually better than the fee in a lot of cases.

cleller
3/5/2012, 08:14 PM
So, let me get this straight, Republicans now favor the use of eminent domain to further private interests. Got it.

I must have not remembered correctly when there was outrage over the Kelo vs City of New London case.


BTW, I'm okay with the pipeline but I'm not okay with hypocrisy.

I have an ONG pipeline running across my property. I own the land, ONG does not. No one took my land away from me. I can plow, graze, whatever I want, it is still my land. You cannot tell the pipeline is there by looking.

soonercruiser
3/6/2012, 12:24 AM
So, let me get this straight, Republicans now favor the use of eminent domain to further private interests. Got it.

I must have not remembered correctly when there was outrage over the Kelo vs City of New London case.


BTW, I'm okay with the pipeline but I'm not okay with hypocrisy.

This!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/notfacism.jpg

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/6/2012, 12:52 AM
This!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/notfacism.jpgBeauty! Got a URL?

soonercruiser
3/6/2012, 12:55 AM
Beauty! Got a URL?

Sent PM.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/6/2012, 01:15 AM
Sent PM.thnx

49r
3/6/2012, 02:34 PM
Jesus, really? It is THAT difficult to figure out how to find the URL of an imbedded image?








...wow...

LiveLaughLove
3/8/2012, 11:35 PM
Surprised no one has mentioned that Obama lobbied the Senate today to block the bill on the pipeline. Seems political wins are more important than jobs and our countries oil woes.

No surprise.

hawaii 5-0
3/8/2012, 11:53 PM
Surprised no one has mentioned that Obama lobbied the Senate today to block the bill on the pipeline. Seems political wins are more important than jobs and our countries oil woes.

No surprise.


Seems someone's overlooking the real reasons for lobbying the Senate, if indeed it happened.

5-0

LiveLaughLove
3/9/2012, 12:12 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html


Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help. In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat.

It indeed happened.

SanJoaquinSooner
3/9/2012, 12:52 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html



It indeed happened.

L3, you don't seem too happy.

Shouldn't you be thrilled that Obama has handed this issue on a silver platter to the pubs to use against him in the election?

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 01:10 AM
11 Dems voted for it... So there is clear bipartisan support for the Keystone XL pipline only the party of no standing in the way...

Obama says he is for an "all of the above" energy policy.. But when it comes time to make it happen, his motto becomes:

No we can't!

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 01:10 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73795.html



It indeed happened.


Whoopee. Now as to the real reason why, as opposed to the political spin version.

?????????

5-0

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 01:32 AM
I'm really not supporting Obama on this but I'm still not sold on the whole idea of letting the Canadians ship THEIR oil thru our country and It's not even necessarily going to be kept here.

It still smells fishy and I'm not in a big rush to break ground on such a big project.

How 'bout repairing a few bridges in the meantime?

5-0

Chuck Bao
3/9/2012, 02:26 AM
I'm really not supporting Obama on this but I'm still not sold on the whole idea of letting the Canadians ship THEIR oil thru our country and It's not even necessarily going to be kept here.

It still smells fishy and I'm not in a big rush to break ground on such a big project.

How 'bout repairing a few bridges in the meantime?

5-0


Good point. I'm also wondering if it wouldn't be cheaper to build a refinery in the Northern US or Canada than to build a pipeline across the US to Houston and then after it's processed to ship it back north by rail or truck. Okay, maybe we shouldn't look too closely at it since Oklahoma stands to benefit from whatever ulterior motives there could be.

okie52
3/9/2012, 08:14 AM
I'm really not supporting Obama on this but I'm still not sold on the whole idea of letting the Canadians ship THEIR oil thru our country and It's not even necessarily going to be kept here.

It still smells fishy and I'm not in a big rush to break ground on such a big project.

How 'bout repairing a few bridges in the meantime?

5-0

Is the government paying for this pipeline....cause we certainly will be for bridges.

okie52
3/9/2012, 08:17 AM
Whoopee. Now as to the real reason why, as opposed to the political spin version.

?????????

5-0

Why don't you give the real reason??? Maybe Obama will trot one out that was as good as his reason for closing Yucca.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/9/2012, 08:34 AM
Jesus, really? It is THAT difficult to figure out how to find the URL of an imbedded image?








...wow...Good hate! You're welcome. haha

jkjsooner
3/9/2012, 10:07 AM
I'm really not supporting Obama on this but I'm still not sold on the whole idea of letting the Canadians ship THEIR oil thru our country and It's not even necessarily going to be kept here.

It still smells fishy and I'm not in a big rush to break ground on such a big project.

How 'bout repairing a few bridges in the meantime?

5-0

I've wondered the same thing. What's in it for us? Are we going to be able to charge a fee on every unit that crosses the pipeline?

This seems to be a plan to get send Canadian oil somewhere else to me. I know the oil market is global so more supply indirectly helps but how much? Would we benefit more by forcing them to refine it somewhere that isn't a global port.

I don't know the issue so I welcome someone educating me on where I'm wrong.

jkjsooner
3/9/2012, 10:10 AM
I guess this takes a little power away from OPEC who really controls the price of oil but how much?

diverdog
3/9/2012, 11:35 AM
I've wondered the same thing. What's in it for us? Are we going to be able to charge a fee on every unit that crosses the pipeline?

This seems to be a plan to get send Canadian oil somewhere else to me. I know the oil market is global so more supply indirectly helps but how much? Would we benefit more by forcing them to refine it somewhere that isn't a global port.

I don't know the issue so I welcome someone educating me on where I'm wrong.

I think jobs and some taxes are all we get.

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 11:43 AM
I think jobs and some taxes are all we get.

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but those two things are about all we need right now... ;)

SanJoaquinSooner
3/9/2012, 11:50 AM
I think every state for the proposed pipeline path voted for McCain.

okie52
3/9/2012, 11:55 AM
I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but those two things are about all we need right now... ;)

If only it were green.....

okie52
3/9/2012, 11:55 AM
I think every state for the proposed pipeline path voted for McCain.

Baztards!!!!

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 11:57 AM
I think every state for the proposed pipeline path voted for McCain.

Is this the real reason why, as opposed to the political spin version?

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 11:58 AM
Why don't you give the real reason??? Maybe Obama will trot one out that was as good as his reason for closing Yucca.



I dunno. Why don't you ask Obama? I'm not his spokesman.

Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

I suspect some Republican palms are getting greased.

Tell me how many living rooms and bedrooms are gonna be dispaced by some big pipeline coming right thru their neighborhood?

5-0

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 12:01 PM
If only it were green.....

That is true. The CBO released a report the other day showing just how much subsidies green energy gets compared to the oil business and even nuclear.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/cboenergy.png

Of course that is just subsidies by dollar amount. If you compared subsidies versus actual energy produced, it would look even more insanely out of whack.

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 12:06 PM
Folks in Hawaii are quickly switching to photovolteic for electricity. Many people are reducing their electric bills from $200 to $16 per month.

It's a lot of money to convert to photovolteic but State and Federal credits bring it down to 1/3 the actual cost.

5-0

okie52
3/9/2012, 12:07 PM
I dunno. Why don't you ask Obama? I'm not his spokesman.

Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

I suspect some Republican palms are getting greased.

Tell me how many living rooms and bedrooms are gonna be dispaced by some big pipeline coming right thru their neighborhood?

5-0

You're not his spokesman??? Could have fooled with me with the depth of your argument.

Got those living rooms and bedrooms stuck in your mind, haven't you? In case you have forgotten about population densities and geography in N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Kansas and OK those are wide open spaces. Maybe if Obama and Chu were in charge of locating it they could manage to hit a house with it.

Now if they were on some congested volcanic rock they might not have many options.

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 12:16 PM
You're not his spokesman??? Could have fooled with me with the depth of your argument.

Got those living rooms and bedrooms stuck in your mind, haven't you? In case you have forgotten about population densities and geography in N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Kansas and OK those are wide open spaces. Maybe if Obama and Chu were in charge of locating it they could manage to hit a house with it.

Now if they were on some congested volcanic rock they might not have many options.

Deja vu.

No everyone lives in cities.

To think no one would be affected would be more than naive.

All of Hawaii is volcanic. We're coping quite well, except for that last fella whose house recently got covered by lava. He's feeling the heat.

5-0

okie52
3/9/2012, 12:17 PM
That is true. The CBO released a report the other day showing just how much subsidies green energy gets compared to the oil business and even nuclear.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/cboenergy.png

Of course that is just subsidies by dollar amount. If you compared subsidies versus actual energy produced, it would look even more insanely out of whack.

Well Obama said that isn't important and that there would be failures.

Of course, we were led to believe there would also be some successes, too.

okie52
3/9/2012, 12:24 PM
Deja vu.

No everyone lives in cities.

To think no one would be affected would be more than naive.

All of Hawaii is volcanic. We're coping quite well, except for that last fella whose house recently got covered by lava. He's feeling the heat.

5-0

Nope not everybody lives in cities but when you are laying pipeline across 160 acre tracts...somehow, someway, you would think an engineer might miss a house that occupied a 1/4 acre.

The lava house, couldn't the guy just go for geothermal now?

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 12:32 PM
Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

5-0

That's rich...

diverdog
3/9/2012, 12:34 PM
That is true. The CBO released a report the other day showing just how much subsidies green energy gets compared to the oil business and even nuclear.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/cboenergy.png

Of course that is just subsidies by dollar amount. If you compared subsidies versus actual energy produced, it would look even more insanely out of whack.


That is That is true. Wind is a new technology that the government is attempting to promote. By creating temporary incentives they speed the maturation of the industry and get the price down to competitive levels. They have been very successful and prices for wind and solar generated electricity have fallen by over an order of magnitude. Once the technologies achieve price competitiveness the incentive should disappear, as will happen in 2013.

The question is why are we subsidizing oil and coal at all? Why are those subsidies permanent? What has been the cumulative cost of these permanent subsidies? Why only include tax dollars in the comparison? The oil industry is completely supported by American military power in the Middle East. Absent our oil interest we wouldn't have spent $1 Trillion fighting Middle East wars this century alone.

The CBO misses some significant subsidies to nuclear as well. Some they miss because no new nuclear plants have been built so no one is taking the tax credits, though new nuclear has the same tax credits available to wind. The CBO also leaves out the subsidy created by the Price-Anderson Act that makes the federal government, not the nuclear industry liable for Fukushima type accidents in this country.

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 12:41 PM
That is That is true. Wind is a new technology that the government is attempting to promote. By creating temporary incentives they speed the maturation of the industry and get the price down to competitive levels. They have been very successful and prices for wind and solar generated electricity have fallen by over an order of magnitude. Once the technologies achieve price competitiveness the incentive should disappear, as will happen in 2013.

The question is why are we subsidizing oil and coal at all? Why are those subsidies permanent? What has been the cumulative cost of these permanent subsidies? Why only include tax dollars in the comparison? The oil industry is completely supported by American military power in the Middle East. Absent our oil interest we wouldn't have spent $1 Trillion fighting Middle East wars this century alone.

The CBO misses some significant subsidies to nuclear as well. Some they miss because no new nuclear plants have been built so no one is taking the tax credits, though new nuclear has the same tax credits available to wind. The CBO also leaves out the subsidy created by the Price-Anderson Act that makes the federal government, not the nuclear industry liable for Fukushima type accidents in this country.Do you have a link to back up all of this stuff you just posted, or are you just pulling stuff out of your *** again? Icky? Is that you?

okie52
3/9/2012, 12:46 PM
That is That is true. Wind is a new technology that the government is attempting to promote. By creating temporary incentives they speed the maturation of the industry and get the price down to competitive levels. They have been very successful and prices for wind and solar generated electricity have fallen by over an order of magnitude. Once the technologies achieve price competitiveness the incentive should disappear, as will happen in 2013.

The question is why are we subsidizing oil and coal at all? Why are those subsidies permanent? What has been the cumulative cost of these permanent subsidies? Why only include tax dollars in the comparison? The oil industry is completely supported by American military power in the Middle East. Absent our oil interest we wouldn't have spent $1 Trillion fighting Middle East wars this century alone.

The CBO misses some significant subsidies to nuclear as well. Some they miss because no new nuclear plants have been built so no one is taking the tax credits, though new nuclear has the same tax credits available to wind. The CBO also leaves out the subsidy created by the Price-Anderson Act that makes the federal government, not the nuclear industry liable for Fukushima type accidents in this country.

Just what are the oil and gas subsidies you are addressing? The oil and gas "writeoffs" are the same tax deductions that are received by every manufacturer in the US.

Chuck Bao
3/9/2012, 12:49 PM
No, he is not mistaken. I'm pulling wind turbines out of my ***. Okay, that's a bit painful, but yeah.

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 12:52 PM
No, he is not mistaken. I'm pulling wind turbines out of my ***. Okay, that's a bit painful, but yeah.Did you use some Jelly today...and no, I don't mean petroleum...

diverdog
3/9/2012, 12:57 PM
Just what are the oil and gas subsidies you are addressing? The oil and gas "writeoffs" are the same tax deductions that are received by every manufacturer in the US.

Why do they need the deductions in the first place. They are very profitable. I think we are well beyond the point of needing to give huge tax writeoffs to a muture industry.

diverdog
3/9/2012, 01:02 PM
Do you have a link to back up all of this stuff you just posted, or are you just pulling stuff out of your *** again? Icky? Is that you?

No. I should have disclosed that it is from an email I sent to a friend of mine who is an energy economist. He specializes mostly in power plants and electrical transmissions. What part is not true?

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 01:10 PM
Why do they need the deductions in the first place. They are very profitable. I think we are well beyond the point of needing to give huge tax writeoffs to a muture industry.How profitable are they? How much profit is too much?

okie52
3/9/2012, 01:17 PM
Why do they need the deductions in the first place. They are very profitable. I think we are well beyond the point of needing to give huge tax writeoffs to a muture industry.

Why should they be treated any differently than any other industry? This goes to the windfall profits mentality that was only applied to the oil business...never to Wall street, or housing, or construction, or auto manufacturing or the tech industry, etc...

If you want to take away the writeoffs then do it for everyone, don't just single out one industry. There are many of us oilies that lost our jobs 25 years (90,000 okies in fact) that didn't get a bailout nor has one ever been given to the oil patch...even when oil and NG were rock bottom from the mid 80's to about 2000.

TFSooner
3/9/2012, 01:22 PM
Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

If you are referring to the environmental process, it wasn't hurriedly pushed through Congress at all because Congress does not approve or review environmental studies. If it goes far enough up the chain of command (so to speak) the Secretary of whatever department has regulatory control will approve/deny it. You know, the executive branch of the three branches of government.

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 01:31 PM
Why should they be treated any differently than any other industry? This goes to the windfall profits mentality that was only applied to the oil business...never to Wall street, or housing, or construction, or auto manufacturing or the tech industry, etc...

If you want to take away the writeoffs then do it for everyone, don't just single out one industry. There are many of us oilies that lost our jobs 25 years (90,000 okies in fact) that didn't get a bailout nor has one ever been given to the oil patch...even when oil and NG were rock bottom from the mid 80's to about 2000.Werd. I think I read that Apple's profit was as big if not bigger than Exxon's...

OULenexaman
3/9/2012, 01:33 PM
Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

5-0 you mean like Obamacare?

diverdog
3/9/2012, 01:35 PM
Why should they be treated any differently than any other industry? This goes to the windfall profits mentality that was only applied to the oil business...never to Wall street, or housing, or construction, or auto manufacturing or the tech industry, etc...

If you want to take away the writeoffs then do it for everyone, don't just single out one industry. There are many of us oilies that lost our jobs 25 years (90,000 okies in fact) that didn't get a bailout nor has one ever been given to the oil patch...even when oil and NG were rock bottom from the mid 80's to about 2000.

Oh I agree. I would end a lot of writeoffs and lower the overall tax rate.

You guys lost your jobs for reasons other than taxes like Reagan allowing cheap foreign oil to flood the market. My grandfather was one of those that got laid off.

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 01:38 PM
you mean like Obamacare?Sometimes, you have to pass them so you can see whats in them...

okie52
3/9/2012, 01:39 PM
Oh I agree. I would end a lot of writeoffs and lower the overall tax rate.

You guys lost your jobs for reasons other than taxes like Reagan allowing cheap foreign oil to flood the market. My grandfather was one of those that got laid off.

The Saudis flooding it was the main reason.

diverdog
3/9/2012, 01:43 PM
The Saudis flooding it was the main reason.

Yep. Never understood why Texans and Okies liked Reagan. He could have cushioned the blow but he turned the economy around on the backs of the domestic oil industry. He also used cheap oil to beat the Russians.

Turd_Ferguson
3/9/2012, 01:45 PM
Yep. Never understood why Texans and Okies liked Reagan. He could have cushioned the blow but he turned the economy around on the backs of the domestic oil industry.Of course he did...

okie52
3/9/2012, 02:17 PM
Yep. Never understood why Texans and Okies liked Reagan. He could have cushioned the blow but he turned the economy around on the backs of the domestic oil industry. He also used cheap oil to beat the Russians.

Cheap oil did it. I still give him credit for it even though it killed a bunch of us...you know, the greater good. Somehow Reagan was one of those guys that could fire you and you still liked him.

hawaii 5-0
3/9/2012, 08:11 PM
you mean like Obamacare?


Yes just like Obamacare. It shouldn't have been passed without a closer examination. Nothing in it about Tort Reform for example. Lots of other stuff in there, or not in there.

5-0

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 09:57 PM
Why do they need the deductions in the first place. They are very profitable. I think we are well beyond the point of needing to give huge tax writeoffs to a muture industry.

So profitable that your own article talks about several refineries in the northeast closing due to high costs....

Chuck Bao
3/9/2012, 10:14 PM
Well, it could be that Houston doesn't give a **** about this environmental crap. That's fine and good with me, just so long as I don't have to live there.

diverdog
3/9/2012, 10:19 PM
So profitable that your own article talks about several refineries in the northeast closing due to high costs....


Yeah they are really going broke.

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 10:26 PM
Yeah they are really going broke.

They were certainly losing money hand over fist.


“Sunoco’s Northeast refining business has lost nearly $1 billion over the last three years,” says company spokesman Thomas Golembeski.

REDREX
3/9/2012, 10:29 PM
So profitable that your own article talks about several refineries in the northeast closing due to high costs....---Refining is not a good business--- A refinery will sell for pennies on the dollar of replacement cost

Chuck Bao
3/9/2012, 10:55 PM
---Refining is not a good business--- A refinery will sell for pennies on the dollar of replacement cost

That's interesting. Before, the gross refinery margins in Asia were calculated as a percentage of crude prices and they were getting upwards to $5 dollars a few years ago. I suppose that it's all different now and in the US. 20-30 years ago, the key to a profitable refinery was having the market channel (service stations). I guess that the retail oil companies sold off or closed their service stations and now their refinery margins are so low that they need to mothball those as well. This is extremely bad news for consumers.

sappstuf
3/9/2012, 11:22 PM
That is That is true. Wind is a new technology that the government is attempting to promote. By creating temporary incentives they speed the maturation of the industry and get the price down to competitive levels. They have been very successful and prices for wind and solar generated electricity have fallen by over an order of magnitude. Once the technologies achieve price competitiveness the incentive should disappear, as will happen in 2013.

The question is why are we subsidizing oil and coal at all? Why are those subsidies permanent? What has been the cumulative cost of these permanent subsidies? Why only include tax dollars in the comparison? The oil industry is completely supported by American military power in the Middle East. Absent our oil interest we wouldn't have spent $1 Trillion fighting Middle East wars this century alone.

The CBO misses some significant subsidies to nuclear as well. Some they miss because no new nuclear plants have been built so no one is taking the tax credits, though new nuclear has the same tax credits available to wind. The CBO also leaves out the subsidy created by the Price-Anderson Act that makes the federal government, not the nuclear industry liable for Fukushima type accidents in this country.

Obama gave an energy speech a couple of weeks in Miami which he said:



This Congress needs to renew the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil

Of course as Phil has pointed out repeatedly, wind and solar do nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I wonder if Obama truly understands that.

He also kept spouting off that the oil companies get $4 billion a year in subsidies.. According to the CBO chart, it appears he is inflating that number somewhat, and of course, ignoring the $15 billion a year in subsidies for renewable energy.

In that article he also inadvertently pointed out the fallacy of wind power. Pointing out that the Miami-Dade Museum had a wind generator he said:


On a typical day, the wind turbine at the Miami-Dade Museum can meet about 10% of the energy needs in a South Florida home

And it IS very cool looking..

http://www.miasci.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Wind-Turbine.jpg

So if you are willing to put up 10 windmills around your yard you are all set right? Nope. The 10% comes from the capacity of the wind generator. Unfortunately several studies show that wind generators, on average, generate about 20% of capacity over the long term and many times drop below 5%.

But staying with the 20%, you would now need 50 wind generators to fully supply a single home with electricity... At least most of the time, sometimes it wouldn't be enough.. The backyard may look a little cluttered at this point.

Wind generators have an average life span of around 25 years(that is what is claimed anyway).. That means every year you will need to replace two of them in addition to all the routine maintenance that would be needed. Are wind turbines recyclable?

Of course, anytime the generation drops below that magical 20%, you will need a diesel generator running and, of course when a hurricane comes your way, you would need to secure all fifty of those things and might need a second diesel generator if you plan on sticking it out.

Of course, I am being a little over the top, but the numbers are not. They are spot on. They do not get any better when you ramp them up to the big mega wind turbines either and the same exact problems arise.

In the end, wind power will not end up being very "green" and will cost boatloads more money than fairly clean natural gas.

If it were me, I would put all that wind and solar money into nuclear. The return on money compared to the final megawatts actually delivered would be orders of magnitude better.

soonercruiser
3/9/2012, 11:31 PM
I dunno. Why don't you ask Obama? I'm not his spokesman.

Me, I'm just suspicious of anything so huge getting hurredly pushed thru Congress.

5-0

ANYTHING???? You mean like the Heathcare Bill.
Have you read all the pages?
Have we discovered everything that's in it yet???
:dispirited:

hawaii 5-0
3/10/2012, 01:46 AM
ANYTHING???? You mean like the Heathcare Bill.
Have you read all the pages?
Have we discovered everything that's in it yet???
:dispirited:


Have YOU even read my previous post?

Please try to keep up.


5-0