Bush FAILING to Convince the Saudis

[texaspackerbacker]

Remember several days ago the media--the left-biased mainstream media--ragging on Bush for failing to convince the Saudi king to increase oil output? It was all over the news--playing to the Bush-hate which they perpetually spew.

Well, the truth is, Bush got the Saudis to increase their output by 300,000 barrels a day. That's a lot of oil! I'm not sure what fraction or percentage of increase it is, but it's a LOT of oil.

How these leftist assholes can get away with not only slanting the news, but in this case, blatantly falsifying it, I'm not sure. But they routinely do.

[Badgepack]

I read that on foxnews.com

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah, damn those leftist media types.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356238,00.html

President Bush Unable to Win Saudi Support on Gas Prices, Oil Production

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

Bush got a red-carpet welcome to this desert kingdom, home to the world's largest oil reserves, and promised to ask King Abdullah to increase production to reduce pressure on prices, which soared past $127 for the first time Friday. But Saudi officials said they already were meeting the needs of their customers worldwide and there was no need to pump more.

Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed.

Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi said the kingdom decided on May 10 to increase production by 300,000 barrels a day to help meet U.S. needs after Venezuela and Mexico cut back deliveries.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," al-Naimi told a news conference, bristling at criticism from the U.S. Congress. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

Early this week, Senate Democrats introduced a resolution to block $1.4 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia unless Riyadh agreed to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels per day.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said the discussion with Bush about oil was friendly. "He didn't punch any tables or shout at anybody," the minister said. "I think he was satisfied."

That couldn't be said for at least one of the candidates hoping to succeed Bush in January. Said Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I think it's very important that we do something more dramatic than going to have tea with the Saudis."

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said consumers would not see dramatic price reductions. Oil experts agreed.

Bernard Picchi, an energy analyst at Wall Street Access, an independent research firm, called the 300,000 barrel Saudi production increase "a token amount."

It would be different, he said, if Saudi Arabia boosted production by 1 million or 1.5 million barrels a day. The announced increase will have Saudi Arabia pumping 9.45 million barrels a day by June, Saudi officials said. That's about 2 million barrels below its capacity. Analysts also discounted the impact of the U.S. Energy Department's announcement that it would cancel shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months beginning July 1.

"It's ridiculous because I don't think this is going to bring the price down," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., of the Energy Department's move.

Midway through a five-day Mideast trip that began in Israel and ends in Egypt, Bush spent the day with Abdullah at his weekend retreat outside the capital. It is known as a horse farm since the king maintains 150 Arabian stallions there. The farm also produces thousands of goats and sheep, bred for the king's royal banquets.

The sagging U.S. economy and painful gasoline prices are the top concerns of Americans in the heart of a heated presidential campaign. The run-up in oil prices has been alarming.

Futures prices of crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange have more than doubled in the past year, from $62.46 a barrel in the first week of May, 2007. Prices reached $100 a barrel for the first time in February and continued rising. They closed at $126.29 Friday.

On Jan. 26, 2000, during a presidential debate, Bush opposed taking oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and instead said then-President Clinton should "jawbone" oil producing nations. That week crude oil prices were $28 a barrel.

Hadley said the Saudis briefed Bush on plans to increase their production capacity. They also argued that even an increase would be unlikely to bring down the soaring prices, which they said were driven more by uncertainty in the market, lack of refining capacity for the type of oil readily available and other complicated dynamics.

Economists say prices are being driven up by increased demand, not slow production. China and India are stretching supplies as they use ever increasing amounts of energy.

Hadley suggested the White House was satisfied with — or at least accepted — the Saudi response. However, he said the Bush administration will see if the explanation "conforms to what our experts say."

Hadley said Bush and the king also focused on Iran and concern about recent violence in Lebanon, where Hezbollah overran Beirut neighborhoods last week in protest of measures by the U.S.-backed government. The display of military power by the Shiite militant group, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, resulted in the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia — eager to stop any advance of regional power by Shiite-dominated Iran — joins the West in supporting Lebanon's government. Hadley said Bush and Abdullah shared a concern that the recent events would "embolden Iran." The U.S. and Saudi Arabia, he said, "are of one mind in condemning what Hezbollah did."

On Thursday, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government reached a deal to end the violence after Lebanon's Cabinet reversed measures aimed at the militants.

Bush's visit was billed as a celebration of 75 years of U.S.-Saudi relations, though they have been frayed by Arab perceptions that Washington favors Israel too much in the dispute with the Palestinians, the Iraq war and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The two countries used the occasion of Bush's visit to sign new agreements.

Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power. Another involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts "and other support services as needed." Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, at the news conference with the oil minister, said he shared Bush's hope for a Mideast peace agreement by next January but sharply criticized Israel for the "humanistic suffering weighed upon the West Bank and Gaza Strip population" of Palestinians. He said Israel's "continued policy of expanding settlements on Palestinian territories" undermines the peace process.


Wow. That was too easy. Tex, stay down, stay down old man. Don't make me pummel you again. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, good ol' tex. Smarter than our president. But, i'm sure Bush is now part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-17-voa7.cfm
Bush Says Saudi Oil Increase is Not Enough

U.S. President George Bush says Saudi Arabia's move to increase oil production to make up for declining output elsewhere does not solve the problem of high gasoline prices for Americans. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, Mr. Bush again called on opposition Democrats to allow for drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.


President Bush with Saudi King Abdullah at al-Janadriyah Ranch in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 16 May 2008
It is the second time in four months that Saudi officials rejected the president's request to boost overall oil production to drive down U.S. gasoline prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi says the kingdom did boost output by 300,000 barrels a day last week, but only to make up for declining production from Venezuela and Mexico.

U.S. National Security Adviser Steven Hadley says Saudi officials told President Bush Friday they do not believe an overall increase in production would dramatically reduce prices at U.S. pumps.

Hadley says Saudi officials argue that rising prices are driven more by uncertainty in the global market and lack of refining capacity.


US President Bush, left, meets with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Sharm El-Sheik, 17 May 2008
Speaking to reporters in Egypt Saturday, President Bush says he told King Abdullah that it is in Saudi Arabia's long-term interest to put more oil on the world market.

"I said very plainly, I said you've got to be concerned about the effects of high oil prices on some of the biggest customers in the world," he said. "And, not only that, of course high energy prices is going to cause countries like mine to accelerate our move towards alternative energy."

President Bush says the kingdom's decision to boost output to make up for other shortfalls is something, but it is not enough.

The president says part of the answer is greater domestic production, and he is criticizing opposition Democrats for not allowing companies to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. He also wants more offshore drilling, more nuclear power and more U.S. refineries.

Higher energy costs are partly responsible for America's economic slowdown with record high oil prices and gasoline approaching $4 a gallon.

Stay down Tex. For god's sake, stay on the canvas. :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

You know what VOA stands for, right, Tyrone? Voice of America--run by the U.S. Information Agency--headed I'm sure by good guys--Bush appointees?

My point was that the LEFT-ORIENTED mainstream media was reporting that Bush FAILED to get the Saudis to raise output--a blatant falsehood. This undoubtedly true and accurate story you posted points out that Bush himself claims the increase should have been more. Fine, EXCEPT, that's NOT what contemporary articles is the flagrantly Bush-hating network and news service and cable media outlets were saying. THEY were spewing "Bush Fails to get Saudi output increase".

It was a top 3 or 4 news story several days ago.

And No, I wouldn't claim to be smarter than Bush. Obama, probably; Kerry for sure; Hillary, I don't know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You know what VOA stands for, right, Tyrone? Voice of America--run by the U.S. Information Agency--headed I'm sure by good guys--Bush appointees?

My point was that the LEFT-ORIENTED mainstream media was reporting that Bush FAILED to get the Saudis to raise output--a blatant falsehood. This undoubtedly true and accurate story you posted points out that Bush himself claims the increase should have been more. Fine, EXCEPT, that's NOT what contemporary articles is the flagrantly Bush-hating network and news service and cable media outlets were saying. THEY were spewing "Bush Fails to get Saudi output increase".

It was a top 3 or 4 news story several days ago.

And No, I wouldn't claim to be smarter than Bush. Obama, probably; Kerry for sure; Hillary, I don't know.

Sorry, but Fox also reported the story as Bush not succeeding. Perhaps you should try reading.

ANd, your other point was that he accomplished something...alot of oil. Wrong. Doesn't change a thing...not enough says Bush, and just fills in the deficit from other countries.

[digitaldean]

This might be a Woodbuck-type length of post, but I have to get this off my chest regarding oil and consumption of it.

Here's how we're in this oil mess to begin with:

1.) We as a nation haven't done enough to demand more off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR to help dometically. That would help short term.

2.) Our government needs to stop pandering with these idiotic gas tax holidays.

3.) Government also needs to relax the standards that necessitate the blends of different fuels to different parts of the country. GAO did a study and found no less than 11 different blends of reg. unleaded gas, 45 if you include all the various octanes sold domestically. Pick the best one or two blends and be done with it! That will help with the supply/demand plus put less of a strain on refinery production.

4.) Relax the tariff on imported ethanol. Not popular in Iowa, but the needs of the nation outweigh the needs of a few. That will help short term.

5.) Relax some of the regs to build at least one or two more refineries. There have been no new ones built since the 70's or 80's because of this.

6.) Once that is done, give the oil companies a choice - build an extra refinery to help with supply or expect a windfall profits tax. I hate that Carteresque style of move, but it may be the only way to motivate them to revitalize the infrastructure.

7.) Stop this idiotic legislation that mandates an extra % of land be used for growing ethanol here. It takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol here. It doesn't help the present supply/demand for food prices when less corn/grain is grown for food than for fuel.

8.) Post a $1 billion reward to the first company than provide the first fuel that comes from a renewable source that doesn't affect supply of commodities such as grain or drain our power grid like electric cars might. The reward can be spread over a 10 year span if necessary, but we need some extra motivation to spur innovation on this. If we have to have a $10 tax on every new car sold just to pay for this, so be it. (13 million new cars were sold in 2006 and 13.2 million in 2007, so even in a down market we could come up with the revenue to pay for it). It can be legislated to end the tax once the $1 billion is reached or paid up to cover it (whichever comes first)

9.) We as a nation have to rethink our driving habits. At this rate, gas will be $6 or $7 / gallon here in the very near future. I, for one, will have to park my truck and only use when absolutely necessary. I will have to take public transit to work or bike when necessary. When my other vehicle dies, I will have to replace it with a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle.

In short, provide as much supply as possible now to keep prices in check as possible. But provide an avenue to get us off the umbilical cord that ties us to the Saudis and morons like Chavez in Venezuela. This is a national security, economic and ecologic issue all rolled into one.

Sorry for the War & Peace version, but the government, the oil companies and the public's complacency has got us this far.

[texaspackerbacker]

No problem with the length of the post, Dean. Well said.

All of the various things you advocate pass the what's-good-for-America test. That is in stark contrast to a certain half-assed America-hater in the lead for the Democrat nomination who made the truly Carter-esque statement that Americans should make sacrifices like not driving SUVs. The hell with that crap.

Tyrone, you're right that even Fox News was putting out the bullshit about Bush failing to get the Saudis to increase output. The unreported 300,000 barrels a day is a helluva lot more than just a token.

Leftists like to whine about Fox being conservative. The truth is, they carry the fair and balanced thing too far sometimes, seemingly parroting the propaganda of the left-saturated rest of the mainstream media.

[Harlan Huckleby]

This might be a Woodbuck-type length of post, but I have to get this off my chest regarding oil and consumption of it.

Digital, you have very pragmatic ideas. I just don't see them as enough.

I think we are way, way off track. Your ideas amount to tweaks to a doomed system. I don't see how increased ethanol or off-shore drilling is significant, and they come with ecological damage.

The notion of "energy independence" is nonsense. We are in a global oil market, locally derived oil is no better than overseas oil, and probably not enough to affect world market price. I can't get excited by replacing a few percentage points of foreign oil with domestic oil.

We need a massive effort to build nuclear power plants. And we have to phase-out the internal combustion engine. We should already be using 100% electric cars for most of our driving. And large investment in solar and wind power seems worthwhile. Better mass transit.

[MJZiggy]

No problem with the length of the post, Dean. Well said.

All of the various things you advocate pass the what's-good-for-America test. That is in stark contrast to a certain half-assed America-hater in the lead for the Democrat nomination who made the truly Carter-esque statement that Americans should make sacrifices like not driving SUVs. The hell with that crap.



What precisely is so horrid about driving a smaller car? And I'm sure the idea of using solar (which is free) or wind (right, free too) is loathsome as well because you have to make an initial investment to do it? or is it because you don't like the way saving energy looks?

[The Leaper]

The notion of increased drilling is pointless now...it should've happened 10-15 years ago. Ramping up production capacity seems relatively pointless, since everyone is going to be jumping on the alternative fuel bandwagon going forward.

The internal combustion engine remains the most practical application for an automobile in today's world. The problem is that not enough has been done to IMPROVE it...mainly because the American public refused to demand it until gas prices went through the roof. Now that demand has been created, you can expect to see vast improvements in the efficiency of internal combustion engines and hybrid technology. Within 2 years, I fully expect to see several vehicles on the market offering 50-60 MPG as the first generation of hybrid vehicles have given us something to build on.

I'm not big on nuclear power plants...too dangerous IMO when compared to hydro, wind and solar potential which have virtually no danger whatsoever.

[digitaldean]

This might be a Woodbuck-type length of post, but I have to get this off my chest regarding oil and consumption of it.
We need a massive effort to build nuclear power plants. And we have to phase-out the internal combustion engine. We should already be using 100% electric cars for most of our driving. And large investment in solar and wind power seems worthwhile. Better mass transit.

HH,

I agree about nuclear. But with the current regulatory process, how do we get it done? You know the Sierra Club and Greenpeace will howl over that. And with the Pavlovian response our elected officials will be barking up a storm.

We will need to upgrade our power grid infrastructure which is overtaxed as it is. But that in and of itself isn't all bad anyway.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The internal combustion engine remains the most practical application for an automobile in today's world.

No, definitely not true. Something like 85% of all car travel is short distance commuting and errands. There is no reason this can't be done in electric cars.
Electric motors are far simpler and have much lower maintanance costs than internal combustion. There is no technical reason why we shouldn't be tooling around in electric cars, the only barriers are entrenched business interests and a failure of imagination.


The problem is that not enough has been done to IMPROVE it.

Fuck No! I don't want to squeeze into some lightweight, "improved" gasoline-powered death trap. This will not help much, gas prices are still going to skyrocket.

Burning fossil fuels is just nuts. Cave man mastered fire a hundred thousand years ago, we need to move forward to smarter energy sources.


Within 2 years, I fully expect to see several vehicles on the market offering 50-60 MPG as the first generation of hybrid vehicles

Hybrids are the worst idea since ethanol. Terrible. Who cares about 50 mpg? You've now needlessly created a much more complex engine, even more expensive to maintain. With the population of drivers growing like gangbusters across the world, demand for oil is still going to go wild, and pollution will still grow geometrically.

Hybrids are terrible because, like ethanol, they are non-solutions to a huge problem that diverts attention from reality.


I'm not big on nuclear power plants...too dangerous IMO when compared to hydro, wind and solar potential which have virtually no danger whatsoever.

It's not an either/or question. All alternative energies should be aggresively pursued.

Nuclear power plants are far safer now than they were 40 years ago when the kabash was put on them. The rest of the world is moving nuclear, there is no other choice for the coming 100 year time window.

Do you want China to continue building a coal-fired power plant every week?

Someday we'll probably have cheap, safe, fusion power. But we need to get there without frying the planet first.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree about nuclear. But with the current regulatory process, how do we get it done? You know the Sierra Club and Greenpeace will howl over that.

There is a growing sector of environmentalists that are pro-nuclear.

How did France move to 90% nuclear power? They have just as strong of an environmental movement.

Energy conservative and alternative technologies can help, but they willl fall far short of the energy & environmenal challenge. We need BIG change, electric cars running off a nuclear power grid. More mass transit.

[The Leaper]

How did France move to 90% nuclear power? They have just as strong of an environmental movement.

They also don't bathe. Hot showers eat up a lot of energy. :D

[The Leaper]

No, definitely not true. Something like 85% of all car travel is short distance commuting and errands. There is no reason this can't be done in electric cars.

So what? 85% of travel is what we HAVE to do, it isn't enjoyable. The 15% you are talking about eliminating IS enjoyable...going to visit family and friends elsewhere, going on vacation, going to see the Packers, etc, etc.

Again, if you are ready to sacrifice your personal ability to travel more than 100 miles from your home...go for it. I just seriously doubt most Americans would share your fantastic enthusiasm of it.


Electric motors are far simpler and have much lower maintanance costs than internal combustion. There is no technical reason why we shouldn't be tooling around in electric cars, the only barriers are entrenched business interests and a failure of imagination.

There's a darn good reason. When my gas tank is empty, it takes me less than 5 minutes to fill it up and continue my travels. When your electric battery gets low, is it going to take you less than 5 minutes to recharge it? It will take hours to recharge it...there's a great way to spend your vacation time heading down to Myrtle Beach or Orlando.

Until there is a way to quickly and efficiently charge an electric motor for a vehicle, I don't see any way you can justify your notion that we should be 100% electric right now.

Have you really thought this through at all Harlan...or are you just talking out your ass? In general, electric motors are highly desirable to internal combustion...I agree on that. Great for golf carts...but people don't use golf carts to drive to Grandma's or the beach. In terms of the automobile, gas engines still provide the greatest ease in terms of usage and time at this point...by far. That could change 15-20 years down the road...but I don't see it happening in the near future.

Stop relying on Al Gore for your thoughts...the car is not the single greatest threat to our globe.

[Harlan Huckleby]

No, definitely not true. Something like 85% of all car travel is short distance commuting and errands. There is no reason this can't be done in electric cars.

So what? 85% of travel is what we HAVE to do, it isn't enjoyable. The 15% you are talking about eliminating IS enjoyable...going to visit family and friends elsewhere, going on vacation, going to see the Packers, etc, etc.


I haven't read your whole post yet because I'm a very busy, important man, but I didn't mean to suggest that electric cars can totally replace gas cars any time soon. Most families would have two cars.

But who knows what electric cars would be able to do in 30 years.

[texaspackerbacker]

No problem with the length of the post, Dean. Well said.

All of the various things you advocate pass the what's-good-for-America test. That is in stark contrast to a certain half-assed America-hater in the lead for the Democrat nomination who made the truly Carter-esque statement that Americans should make sacrifices like not driving SUVs. The hell with that crap.



What precisely is so horrid about driving a smaller car? And I'm sure the idea of using solar (which is free) or wind (right, free too) is loathsome as well because you have to make an initial investment to do it? or is it because you don't like the way saving energy looks?

It's not a question of what is or isn't good or bad about small cars versus SUVs. It is the idea of a God damned elitist piece of crap like Obama advocating government intrusion to prevent or discourage people from driving SUVs. And I say that as somebody who has never owned an SUV.

I get the same feeling as with motorcycle helmet laws. I always used a helmet, but I hated like hell the idea of some damn government telling me I had to. Same thing with seat belts, except most of the time I don't even use them. Down here in Texas, they have an absolutely galling commercial--paid for with taxpayer money, saying "Click It or Ticket"--to which I say "Stick It".

When the time comes that market forces bring us solar or wind power or electric cars or whatever, then we will have them. Until that time, the idea of some God damned sick elitist liberal bureaucrat dictating to Americans what we can or can't drive is pure bullshit. And the idea of Americans being forced to do ANYTHING because the God damned rest of the world wants it or thinks it's better, that better NEVER happen--and it won't happen, barring the prospect of electing an America-hating asshole like Obama.

[MJZiggy]

But shouldn't we be spending the money to develop the future rather than on drilling for more oil dependence? There's a difference between the government mandating the use of smaller cars and discouraging the use of SUVs.

I find it fascinating that out in the desert, one of the richest oil nations in the world is spending billions on R&D of alternative energies in order to assure that we will always be dependent on them...

[texaspackerbacker]

There's a difference between the government mandating the use of smaller cars and discouraging the use of SUVs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A difference in DEGREE only. How do you define "discourage"? I define it in this case as the government delivering a hard financial hit to people driving the vehicle libs want to "discourage". And that is just plain wrong--a totally unwarranted restriction of our freedom just because some damn elitists want to see life become less pleasant in America.

Who do you think should be paying for all this "R & D" on alternative fuel sources. As you said yourself, there actually IS a lot of it being done already. As market forces justify such investment, there will be more of it. That's the way free enterprise capitalism works--and it DOES work!

You said you were "fascinated" by the fact that the oil companies are prime movers toward alternatives. Does that mean you are for that or against it? I don't see how you could possibly find a rational reason to be against it.

[MJZiggy]

You said you were "fascinated" by the fact that the oil companies are prime movers toward alternatives. Does that mean you are for that or against it? I don't see how you could possibly find a rational reason to be against it.

When did I ever say anything about oil companies wanting to do anything about alternatives? Oil companies want nothing more than to suck every drop of oil they can get out of the earth and charge us a mint to do it.

(by the way, when I said America should spend the money on R&D, I was referring to the money that they would have spent fighting the legal battles, then pumping oil out of virgin territory, refining it, and transporting it before a penny of profit can be made from it.

[texaspackerbacker]

You said:

I find it fascinating that out in the desert, one of the richest oil nations in the world is spending billions on R&D of alternative energies in order to assure that we will always be dependent on them...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that doesn't refer to the oil companies, then WHO does it refer to--oil companies getting into alternatives to assure "we will always be dependent on them"?

It certainly is true, and has been for 50 years or more.

If by "America" you mean the government, then hell yeah, they/we should stop spending that money on legal expenses in those cases--because they are the ones fighting the suits by companies wanting to drill in ANWAR off shore, and elsewhere that the environmentalist wackos whine about.

[mraynrand]

Probably the best the govt. could do is to get out of the way of industry trying to solve problems. With respect to the Saudis, if the oil output is truly maxed out, then - other than the bubble due to speculation and the weak dollar - the Saudis shouldn't be able to screw with prices when companies really heavily invest in alternatives and alternative sites for drilling. The ability of OPEC to dump their product has undermined profitable exploration in the past - so the U.S. govt.'s job is to prevent this.

One hidden problem that I don't see addressed here is that energy companies are not always necessarily trying to fight to drill for more oil or produce more energy - they are trying to make the best profit. That's OK, but it does lead to funny deals, like when the Nat. gas industry sided with the environmental lobby to get congress to limit nat. gas exploration. why did they do it? Because it's easier to charge more for the same product than invest in exploration and drilling. Ultimately, if the market expands and demand continues to rise, it will be in the best interest of companies to explore and drill, but don' t be shocked if deals like this are carried out to max out profits in the short term. Remember that most of you with mutual funds probably have your kids college and retirement at least partially dependent on energy profits.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, I was referring to the government of the UAE, namely Abu Dhabi which has dumped billions into R&D and is now in the implementing stages of making us look like ignorant buffoons over here, but if you want to keep drilling for oil and let them take the lead in innovation, don't complain when it pays off for them and we're still sitting here debating about whether we should be drilling in pristine natural environs in order to keep life more convenient for us.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Drilling more domestic oil might make us more "energy independent" in a theoretical sense. If some giant world war disrupted shipping, we'd have a relatively secure supply.

But it will do little to nothing about price. Domestic and foreign oil sell at the same market price, we'd have to suck enough oil out to affect international markets, and I doubt that is possible.

I think we face a very scary situation. We failed to retool after the last major crisis in the 1970's.

[oregonpackfan]

I think we face a very scary situation. We failed to retool after the last major crisis in the 1970's.[/quote]

If you recall, Harlan, Jimmy Carter began a program developing alternative forms of energy. Though he had his shortcomings as a President, he did have the foresight to realize there is just a finite amount of fossil fuels on this planet and that alternative sources of energy were needed to make the country energy independent.

So what did Ronald Reagan do when he was elected President in 1980? His first symbolic act was to remove the solar panels that Carter had installed in the White House. Then he systematically scrapped all the alternative energy programs the Carter administration had begun.

Reagan was a big advocate of oil. His own Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, was an oil man. In addition, the oil companies were huge contributors to his presidential campaign.

Think of where are country would be right now if we had been developing those alternative energy programs since 1980. We would have been far less dependent on importing foreign oil(we currently import 60% of our oil use.)

In addition, we would not have had to invade Iraq and have this 5+ year Iraq War. This is really what this war is all about--OIL. It has been well documented that Saddam Hussain had no Weapons of Mass Destruction which were a threat to the United States, nor did he have anything to do with 9/11 or al-Qaida.

[Scott Campbell]

Natural gas is around 65 cents a gallon here in UT, and we have 20 stations for refueling along the Wasatch front. Honda makes a $23K natual gas civic. Very tempting. Smaller tanks mean only about 200 miles per tank.

[MJZiggy]

I have a smaller tank and get about 400 per tank...though I'm not using natural gas. I wonder what mpg it gets.

[oregonpackfan]

Hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that needs to be explored and further developed.

[oregonpackfan]

Hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that needs to be explored and further developed.

[Freak Out]

Natural gas is around 65 cents a gallon here in UT, and we have 20 stations for refueling along the Wasatch front. Honda makes a $23K natual gas civic. Very tempting. Smaller tanks mean only about 200 miles per tank.

Honda sells a nice little home fueler that you use off your existing utility hookup....takes a few hours but just do it at night.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hydrogen is an alternative fuel source that needs to be explored and further developed.

I'm confused by "hydrogen." Perhaps ignorant is more appropriate word. There are hydrogen-based fuel cells that are electrical batteries. And then there is notion of burning hydrogen.

Bottom line as I understand it is that hydrogen is like fusion, a hope but a distant one.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, I was referring to the government of the UAE, namely Abu Dhabi which has dumped billions into R&D and is now in the implementing stages of making us look like ignorant buffoons over here, but if you want to keep drilling for oil and let them take the lead in innovation, don't complain when it pays off for them and we're still sitting here debating about whether we should be drilling in pristine natural environs in order to keep life more convenient for us.

Thank you for clarifying that.

If R & D in any friendly country turns out to be successful, we all benefit. I'm just fine with the UAE doing this research. Some posters in here act like it is as simple as snapping our fingers--what if we had done this or that way back when. It's obviously not that simple--major investment and usually a lot of time, not to mention, no guarantee of success and a return on the investment.

Also, Scott's post about marketable natural gas for cars sounds good.

As I have said, these ideas will become prominent when the time is right--when the science works and when the market is such that the new stuff is feasible in comparison to oil products. High oil prices hasten that time in coming.

Some of you act like it's an either/or situation--either we use American oil or we do research. It just ain't that way. The research has been going on for a long time by a lot of different investors.

Preaching hate for oil companies or obstructing use of cheap fuel available now does nothing except HURT PEOPLE. Yet that is the position these leftists take. What is wrong with the idea of doing what is good for people now, and STILL do the research for the future? The second half of that--the research--is already being done. It is just the use of current sources that is being obstructed by leftists whose only motivation could be hate and making life worse for Americans.