http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2004/12/06/ap1693216.html

Gee, the price of oil was down to $43.00 and the Saudi's who have been promising to raise production are now going to work on cutting production instead. One dollar increase in the price of oil means we send almost $4.5 billion dollar more overseas for our energy purchases. With the dollar plunging like a third world currency, our OPEC "friends" are seeing their purchase power evaporate when they are shopping for goodies in Paris.

I would venture that Bush will do nothing because when the price of oil runs back up in the $50+ range, it is good for the oil industry world wide, especially the producers. In the meantime, where is the foresight in policy? Having an energy policy that is no better than looking down the barrel of a gun and pulling the trigger to see what happens is not going to help our economy.

For those who will drag out the "oil was more expensive way back when" argument, I say get relevant. Who cares that oil cost more the last time we were getting bent over the barrel when factoring in inflation and all those other voodoo economic number mashing tricks. First of all ours and the global economy was a different animal then. Second, even though I remember being pissed at the price increase, but I had a good job, free medical insurance from that job, rent was cheap, food was cheap, and the effect of the price of gas was muted through conservation, smart driving and planning.

So now they let the dollar slide like John Kerry's post election popularity to spur economic development? I guess all those things we export will be more affordable to other countries? Sure, it will be a cold day in hell that letting the dollar take it completely in the phooter will make our stuff more affordable than China, if we made the stuff the world wants. Of course maybe Boeing will sell a few more jets and our agricultural products, if not heavily tariffed, will be more competitive, but I can't see how the dollars spiral into worthlessness combined with the spin up of energy prices is going to be either a long or short term a boost to our economy except to those industries that we rule in. Someone remind me what industries to we still rule in that we produce within our borders other than maybe defence industries and maybe agriculture that may benefit from a worthless dollar?

------------------
Wudman
www.wudman.com
TheWudIsGood
www.fierodriver.com
Home of the one and only Fiero Photo-Rama

Seems to me that "tit for tat" still works.
We are the strongest country in the world. Yes our strength developed a need for oil. If it did not, they could not guird our loins. We will survive.
Will they survive without our oil money ?

What else can we hold back on ?
The list is endless.

In agreement, yes, it is something to think about. Also think about this. They want more money which is why they are doing it. We have oil here that we can drill for and produce. We can also do it environmently safely. Perhaps we should not put the Carribou before us. Are we willing to sacrifice some taken for granted luxuries to prevent price gouging ?

We are a can do country. We did not become one by crying. We do not suck up. We suck it up!

Bush will not stand by and do nothing. He will not make any money from them raising prices by lowering production. He might by pursuing a domestic energy production program. Which we should just to let the world know we are not hostage to foriegn supply. His program better include alternative sources, conservation, sacrifice, responcibility, and # 's on #'s of other things.

Was it a conspiracy ? The 200 MPG carburator I first heard of in the 70's. I heard BIG OIL bought the patents to kill it so as to protect profit. We went from the Earth to the Moon without a petroleum based propulsion system. This is not to say oil played no part in the program.

I get pissed off at the "new" generations. What would your kids say if when they told you they were thirsty, you told them to go draw water from a well ?

Relying on Bush and Congress, a bunch of fat cats seeking to protect their power seems to be a waste of time, especially since those in power think they have a mandate to do whatever it is they have been doing while the energy we depend on has gone "golden".

I don't know what it will take to spur a grass roots movement that will voice the will of the citizen over the funding of the corporation. Is ANWR the answer? I doubt it. With OPEC setting the price and the dollar sucking wind, what good is adding more to the supply just to have OPEC make even more drastic cuts to keep the price up. It isn't as if the ANWR production will have it's own benchmark price that would be unaffected by the world market.

I would think a fundamental evaluation of the currency values of our major trading partners would be a good, first start. As it is there are rumors of swapping the currency that oil is traded on. It will not fare us well if the dollar loses it's luster and a standard. If major commodities such as oil, swap to the Euro because of the valuation issues of the dollar, our economic policy would be fully at the mercy of off shore interests. As it is, we have one friend in Europe and Blairs days are numbered.

Maybe I am overly optimisitc, but it seems if the citizens use the same voodoo economics that corporations have been using, we can effect policy on the world and Washington. Why can't we decide to drive less, not buy SUV gas hogs, not take Christmas road trips, increase our savings, reduce our consumption of crappy Chinese goods, and reduce our thermostats a few degrees. Things we have had to do in the past and that would make a difference. All you hear about is how the consumer is driving the economic recovery. Well that doesn't seem to make much sense to me as a long term recovery plan. It isn't as if we are spending money that will stay here to start with. Eventually, consumers taking on debt to finance an economic recovery is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We need to tighten up our belts and adjust our lifestyles because if we don't, it seems that the world is going to gleefully do it to us anyway. So rather than be victims of our own gluttony, it is time to get real or when the correction comes around, it will be more than crap hitting the fan. It will be you, your friends, and I getting ground up and spit out into the new world order.

Sorry. Trying to follow you.
What is ANWR ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Sorry. Trying to follow you. What is ANWR ?

Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve (ANWR) where all those caribou that people want to say is the reason we are not drilling there. Well I venture to say that if Bush thought it was in his best interest to open that up, it would have been. I think the powers that be prefer to keep domestic production down for a few reasons. One being that even if the drilled that place into swiss cheese, it would not make a significant impact on the price or supply for reasons already noted. The other thing is that if the drilling didn't do all that it was hyped up to do, the only people that would benefit would be the Alaskans and the energy barons in Texas which would leave those who pushed the policy looking pretty much like tools of the industry.

If this was a supply issue, I'd expect that the domestic oil producers would be going all out to extract more of this shallow oil that is plentiful in Southern Illinois. Why drill 15,000 ft+ in the outback when you can maximize what you are dragging from less than 6k ft in the heartland?

Okay, let's start from the top.

If the guys in Saudi cut oil production, it actually HURTS Bush, not helps. Why? Because if oil costs too much, the economy doesn't improve as quickly. Make no mistake about it; the Saudis are only trying to help themselves.

They may or may not be Bush's "buddies" over there in Saudi, but keeping the price of oil artificially high won't help Bush at all.

As for American sources of oil: the problem with what you recommend is that US oil still costs too much. Even at $50 per barrel, middle East oil is cheaper than US oil is. There's a variety of reasons, but one of the big ones is the environmentalist and NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) groups. By flexing their lawyers, they make any plan to exploit US oil sources much harder and more expensive.

That's why ANWR hasn't happened yet. Now that the Republicans have a larger majority in the Senate it is possible that we might actually get to drill in ANWR.

Here's hoping!

Ed

How could any thing "hurt" Bush now? The lamest duck that ever swam in the pond and he has not only a "mandate", but what did he call it, "political capital" to spend? As far as his golden opportunity to write all the public policy he ever wanted, we shall see what one can do with both houses supposedly on the same program that he is on.

One thing I think we should not hear is how the Democrats are obstructing the will of the solid majority. It is sort of funny that the last mission of the current congress is not being brought up to a vote by the majority leader because he can't get his majority together.

Ed,
As far as hoping for the newer, larger majroity to get drilling done in ANWR, how does that reconcile with the expense of domestic oil you mentioned? Also, do you think the Saudi's will just turn to new markets to replace the market share ANWR would affect or would hey just throttle down the supply some more?

[This message has been edited by Wudman (edited 12-06-2004).]

Isn't there a tremendez supply of oil in mexico and canada and alaska.What exactly keeps us from using that?

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Isn't there a tremendez supply of oil in mexico and canada and alaska.What exactly keeps us from using that?

The enviromentalist and tree huggers so far have . Some of those enviromentalist needs to work on how to put up the oil fields responsibly rather than to ***** about why they shouldn't be there. Fact is if the resources are there they will be used eventually unless alternate means are found. That appears to be some time off.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: We went from the Earth to the Moon without a petroleum based propulsion system.

Actually, the Saturn V's stage 1, F1 rocket used RP-1 (kerosene) and LOX (liquid oxygen). So we didn't even get off the ground without a petroleum based propulsion system.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_%28rocket_engine%29

quote Originally posted by edhering: Okay, let's start from the top. If the guys in Saudi cut oil production, it actually HURTS Bush, not helps. Why? Because if oil costs too much, the economy doesn't improve as quickly. Make no mistake about it; the Saudis are only trying to help themselves. They may or may not be Bush's "buddies" over there in Saudi, but keeping the price of oil artificially high won't help Bush at all. As for American sources of oil: the problem with what you recommend is that US oil still costs too much. Even at $50 per barrel, middle East oil is cheaper than US oil is. There's a variety of reasons, but one of the big ones is the environmentalist and NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) groups. By flexing their lawyers, they make any plan to exploit US oil sources much harder and more expensive. That's why ANWR hasn't happened yet. Now that the Republicans have a larger majority in the Senate it is possible that we might actually get to drill in ANWR. Here's hoping! Ed

Ed, these guys are not interested in learning about how economies work, nor about how oil prices are set, nor about who really controls oil production or why. They are driven by Bush Hatred. If Bush eradicated world hunger and poverty tomorrow they'd be suggesting that it was all a scheme to make himself and his "oil buddies"...whomever they are...rich.

Let them have their little hate-fest complete with hoods and secret handshakes and let's save our debate for those who ask relevant questions about how this is a good or bad thing, and have a sincere desire to learn.

Sorry to dissapoint you Todd, this isn't about "hating" Bush. This is about not seeing any direction from the top since the beginning of his first term, on energy policy. At least no direction he or Cheney were willing to share with the citizens. I think it would be reasonable to expect Bush President to stand up to the likes of OPEC with something as simple as a statement since action seems to be a lot to hope for. He told us he would, but he never followed up. Instead after the attacks today, all he had was praise for Saudi Arabia. Why won't Bush show some backbone and signal the world that he will not let our economy be held hostage by a bunch of third world dictators in the Middle East or some prima donna Euro-weanies? Might be a bit late now since clearly his days are numbered in office, so any poitical "capital" he may have had to get the Saudi's to play fair has dimished in value.

Instead of blindly defending Bush's lack of policy, tell us what he said after it was clear that the Saudi representative for OPEC said that they needed to bring the floor up on the price of oil? These are the same cronies that said they were going to bring production up since May, something that has not happened.

The election is over Todd, so this isn't about who is red and who is blue. We all will be affected by OPEC's decision to keep oil prices high because of what they now claim is the weakness of the dollar. The last time I checked, there were not special prices for red gas or blue gas. There was no distinctive pricing for food that came from red states or off blue trucks and when I look around, I see we are all in the same boat.

Bush said he would be strong with Saudi Arabia. Well I want to see it because no matter where we decide to drill, OPEC will control the global price of oil. If you think ANWR, Canadian, Mexican (a member of OPEC) or any other oil is going to be insulated from cartel oil supply policies, it is you who need to check what orifice your head is up.

If I was a Saudi oil prince, I'd go about looting the US treasury because in the short term I'd make out and in the long term I woudn't care since emerging economies will eventually pick up the slack. Even if US consumer demand for imported products dropped off the face of the earth, other consumers would step in. I would sit on all the dollars plundered with my pricey oil that were only good in the USA. Eventually I'd invest them in the US when the economy hit rock bottom. In the meantime, there are billions of Chinese getting the consumer bug that will keep the Chinese and Indian industry producing goods and consuming oil. If I was a Saudi prince, probably the best thing that could happen for my long term wealth is if the US economy stalled. That way I could sell less oil for more money to the likes of that much larger market in China. I could get dollars cheap which would buy fine things in the US cheap. If the US wouldn't provide security, I am sure the Russians and Chinese would be glad to help.

The problem with alot of my fellow countrymen is that they think the world will wither up and die without the dollar. Well folks, a day is coming when the dollar will not be the premium currency to trade on and markets will change to where there is stability. This is the revenge the world has been waiting to get a long time. The long term forcast for US financial health is dismal, especially given what our social programs are going to start costing us. Now we are going to take borrowing to a higher level, trading low value dollars to finance more debt. Even Republicans see what is on the horizon, but like the deer in the headlamps, I wonder if they will move in time..

P.S. Todd, I doubt you will add anything to this debate, but next time to chime in with your usual drivel, read and then think before you spread what passes as witty banter at your dinner table. You can either argue a rebuttle or consider not participating. I have written what I think, if you are going to attack what I have said bring it on. If you are just going to attack, approaching the subject with your butt first suits you well.

[This message has been edited by Wudman (edited 12-06-2004).]

OPEC is a loose cannon. If Bush (or any president) takes too harsh a stance, they can embargo the oil and right now our economy is starting to turn around, but that would put us spiraling back into recession or possibly even despression. Remember, OPEC has more resources than we do. They can afford to not sell to us better than we can afford not to buy from them.

I don't know an immediate solution, but alternative sources of oil and alternative fuels are definitely in our best interest.

Buying oil from these guys is like renting your home.You never know when you're going to leave.

In all my life the one single most important thing I've learned is if you don't need it it will be cheap and if you do it will be expensive.
With that in mind don't you guys think we should have some real goals at getting rid of the need for these pricks.Does anybody ever talk about that?

If we were not oil dependant what problems could they be to us?
We need some leadership that isn't afraid of losing the election and isn't afraid to piss off people in general.

we should be getting our oil locally.We supply the military that protects canada and mexico they should supply the fuel to fly our jet and run our tanks.We ought to go down the list and move on to eleminating the need for oil.If the rest of the world want to use it let em.We have other technologys
We are still burning fuel to make electricity!!
Did you know they can use the tides to make electricity and thermal vents and hydro power and wind and solor and god forbid nuclear.

Why do we need airlines to fly around the country.We have the technology to make high speed train that basically cost nothing to run and produce zero emmisions.We still need planes but cutting down can be done.

The reason is we are afraid to kill all these economys.All this new stuff will make new economys but it's hard to start em up.We need people that are not afraid to start this stuff.

we are being controlled by a select few people.trhe smallest percentile guides our course.I say we find these people and kill them.

Everybody all together now say MOOOO MOOOO.

Forbes Mag?

Aren't they the ones who voted the Fiero one of most ugly car?

or was it...

The car name that has no meaning?

Forbes sux

I don't think anwr has enough proven production reserves to do anything but be a stop gap measure at best. I don't think it's worth the expense and trouble, and certainly not worth the problems it may or may not cause environmentally, and politically for anyone involved, other than the oil companies. Sure, it sounds good, and looks good on paper, till you start looking at how much we really use everyday. We're just too danged dependant on oil.

quote Originally posted by Wudman: Instead of blindly defending Bush's lack of policy, tell us what he said after it was clear that the Saudi representative for OPEC said that they needed to bring the floor up on the price of oil? These are the same cronies that said they were going to bring production up since May, something that has not happened.

Careful, I've paddled these waters before.. those are dreaded questions...what did Bush say or tell us about... ? Expect the thread to eventually die without any real explanation, you might get something like "at least we know where he stands."

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 12-06-2004).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I don't think anwr has enough proven production reserves to do anything but be a stop gap measure at best. I don't think it's worth the expense and trouble, and certainly not worth the problems it may or may not cause environmentally, and politically for anyone involved, other than the oil companies. Sure, it sounds good, and looks good on paper, till you start looking at how much we really use everyday. We're just too danged dependant on oil.

Best case scenario I've seen has ANWR reserves equal to just under one 2001 year of consumption reserves, and if it was opened right this minute it would take almost a decade to get production on line. By then reserves will be less than 250 days of consumption, then what? If ANWR is so meaningless in terms of even short term consumption much less long term consumption, why the big push to open that natural wildlife refuge and wreck the ecology there? Because American oil companies will make a big profit on every barrel of oil pumped out of ANWR, that's why. Short term profit, too, since ANWR will be depleted within a few short years.

It's all about profit, damn the environmental consequences and to hell with lifting a finger to develop sources of power that don't require dealing with the freaking middle east.

JazzMan

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: ...and to hell with lifting a finger to develop sources of power that don't require dealing with the freaking middle east.

Just out of curiosity, can you name one of these power sources that we ought to develop?

Wudman, the convenient thing about ANWR is that it's smack-dab in the middle of a huge area of Federal land. There are no NIMBY-types around, and because it's federally-controlled land the gov't decides how to use it.

I'm not so sure about the "best case" estimates JazzMan cited, either--why go to all this trouble for one year's worth of oil? OTOH it may be a way to get a "foot in the door", ie set a precedent, so that we can actually develop our own resources elsewhere in the US.

I don't know. I do know that it's possible to drill for oil and not kill everything for miles around. The Alaskan Pipeline they ran through in the 70s ended up HELPING local wildlife. Prince William Sound was back to normal about two years after Exxon Valdez. Natural systems are highly stable and adaptable.

Ed

quote Originally posted by edhering: I don't know. I do know that it's possible to drill for oil and not kill everything for miles around. The Alaskan Pipeline they ran through in the 70s ended up HELPING local wildlife. Prince William Sound was back to normal about two years after Exxon Valdez. Natural systems are highly stable and adaptable. Ed

That's because the environmentalists NEED something to b**** about.

i just had a few things to add to this but dont take them too seriously... if you remember bush has dragged 2 us oil companies into the ground and has had oil connections in the middle east for many years. point made to the questions on why we dont drill in local or cheaper areas

quote Originally posted by fierobear: That's because the environmentalists NEED something to b**** about.

Duhbya has pretty much put the kabash on environmental restrictions so yes, they do have a hell of alot to bich about.

quote Originally posted by 84Bill: Duhbya has pretty much put the kabash on environmental restrictions so yes, they do have a hell of alot to bich about.

Which ones?
Keyoto? (would have bankrupted the US) Read it some time. We would have been responsible for living up to extreme environ levels, while at the same time funding third world nations to bring them up to speed while they would have been exempt.

The mercury level thing that Clinton slipped in last min? bring levels down to 2pts per billion as opposed to 10 pts per billion. (your body can't tell the difference) more "feel good" legislation that would have just raised your water costs/taxes with no significant return.

quote Originally posted by Uaana:

Yeah, sorry.. I should have said "turned a blind eye to VIOLATIONS commited by (big business) polluters of the environment"

quote Originally posted by Uaana: Which ones? Keyoto? (would have bankrupted the US) Read it some time. We would have been responsible for living up to extreme environ levels, while at the same time funding third world nations to bring them up to speed while they would have been exempt. The mercury level thing that Clinton slipped in last min? bring levels down to 2pts per billion as opposed to 10 pts per billion. (your body can't tell the difference) more "feel good" legislation that would have just raised your water costs/taxes with no significant return.

Mercury damage 'irreversible'

quote Scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health have found that methyl mercury contamination of seafood can cause heart damage and irreversible impairment to brain function in children, both in the womb and as they grow. "If something happens in the brain at development, you don't get a second chance," says lead researcher Philippe Grandjean. Researchers were unable to identify a threshold below which mercury did not hurt children.

quote Originally posted by Wudman: Sorry to dissapoint you Todd, this isn't about "hating" Bush. This is about not seeing any direction from the top since the beginning of his first term, on energy policy.

Sorry to disappoint you Wudman but that's horseshit and everyone knows it. IF it was about "not seeing any direction" then why didn't you just ask those who know more than you, "I don't see the direction, can someone explain it to me please"?

You choose instead to ASSUME that your inability to "see direction" meant that there WAS no direction and to then take a further step in the wrong direction to assume that this perceived " lack of direction" was Bush's fault.

Learn how to ask sincere questions and I'll give you sincere answers. Otherwise, you'll continue to get THIS kind of response.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Sorry to disappoint you Wudman but that's horseshit and everyone knows it. IF it was about "not seeing any direction" then why didn't you just ask those who know more than you, "I don't see the direction, can someone explain it to me please"? You choose instead to ASSUME that your inability to "see direction" meant that there WAS no direction and to then take a further step in the wrong direction to assume that this perceived " lack of direction" was Bush's fault. Learn how to ask sincere questions and I'll give you sincere answers. Otherwise, you'll continue to get THIS kind of response.

Todd, I didn't ask you anything. I don't see anyone else here asking you anything. In fact I see other people talking about the issue for the most part. That is everyone but you. As usual, you just come in and consider you personal attacks some kind of contribution. Two posts, both devoid any intellectual worth. Again, you can choose to not participate if you don't have anything to say.

quote Originally posted by Tigger: Mercury damage 'irreversible [QUOTE] Researchers were unable to identify a threshold below which mercury did not hurt children.

[/QUOTE]

Don't dispute exposure to high levels as being toxic.
"Mercury is a naturally occurring chemical element found throughout the environment. Mercury is found in three forms: as a pure metal (as found in thermometers), as inorganic salts, and as an organic derivative. Humans and wildlife are exposed to all three forms. Most environmental mercury consists of the metallic and inorganic forms. Because mercury is everywhere, it is not possible to prevent all exposure to it. High levels of mercury are toxic. "
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/thimerosal.htm
More interesting reading
http://water.usgs.gov/wid/FS_216-95/FS_216-95.html
Some more (caution big words)
http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/mercury.htm

The levels Clinton put in were a "parting shot" political bomb. It would have cost YOU (not just those evil corporations.. they tend to pass the increased cost on to the consumer.. or just shut down and move offshore) Not to mention the probable increased taxes as all our local water treatment plant would have to have been upgraded to bring mercury levels lower than what they normally occur in nature.

If you're really that worried about it and don't mind the added cost.. Buy bottled water. As for the fish. The damage has been done.. We've cleaned up and put restrictions on the polluters back in the 70's, it's going to take time for that to cycle out.. There isnt much "Man" can do about the damage done during the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. If you want to be upset go yell at your parents and grandparents.. Reducing mercury from .07ppm to .05ppm isn't a solution.

--sorry for the long post--

Well, W. obviously doesn't mind pissing people off, and he can't win another re-election, so maybe he IS the right guy at the right time to deal with this. I don't know enough about the ANWR to know if drilling would be useful or not, but since we haven't done it yet, it's hard to argue the corporate greed part. There's plenty of blame to go around on things that have been done rather than things that haven't.

As for Canada and Mexico, ask them if we protect them. They'll likely thumb their nose at you and most likely won't offer anything in the way of assistance. But if/when they need US, they'll be banging down our door like pilgrims on that first Thanksgiving.

I think we need more research into nuclear power. The problem is there are so many regulations and requirements to build a nuke plant that it's virtually impossible to build one and make it profitable. If a company can't make profit, it can't stay in business. But if requirements are loosened, then everyone complains about wrecking the environment and predicting another TMI or Chernobyl.

The American people have to realize they can't have it both ways. IF you want alternative energy, you have to be willing to pay for it. Oil is cheap and available (compared to developing new technologies and the infrastructure to use them). It's not just the big corporations that are greedy. Everyone here bitches and moans whenever the price of gas goes up. Well, energy prices are tied to supply and demand. Alternative energies, if available, will not be cheaper than gas or oil in the near term. Are you going to suck it up and pay more for the same fuel? Probably not. A few people will, but just as a gas station that's a nickle cheaper gets all the business, whatever fuel supply is cheaper will get the lion share of business. Just look at all the people trading in their SUVs for hybrid Hondas.

We do need a stronger energy policy, especially with regards to OPEC. Given the situation in Iraq, with a friendly government there, I think we should buy as much oil from them as possible once the region is more stable. We could under cut the OPEC price while still giving Iraq a large economic windfall. Then Iraq can start paying for some of it's on rebuilding. That saves us money on gas. It saves us money on Iraq rebuilding. Iraq makes money to become more self-sufficient. Sounds like a win-win situation all around. But there will be those who scream "No blood for oil" no matter what. So, do we not buy Iraqi oil and continue to pay to rebuild? Seems like a bad idea to me. I'm not arguing whether or not we should have invaded. We're there. Let's deal with today going forward.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-07-2004).]

quote Originally posted by Wudman: Todd, I didn't ask you anything. I don't see anyone else here asking you anything..

The defense rests.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: The levels Clinton put in were a "parting shot" political bomb. It would have cost YOU (not just those evil corporations.. they tend to pass the increased cost on to the consumer.. or just shut down and move offshore) Not to mention the probable increased taxes as all our local water treatment plant would have to have been upgraded to bring mercury levels lower than what they normally occur in nature. If you're really that worried about it and don't mind the added cost.. Buy bottled water. As for the fish. The damage has been done.. We've cleaned up and put restrictions on the polluters back in the 70's, it's going to take time for that to cycle out.. There isnt much "Man" can do about the damage done during the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. If you want to be upset go yell at your parents and grandparents.. Reducing mercury from .07ppm to .05ppm isn't a solution.

Once in a while it would be nice to leave the environment in .02ppm better condition than it was to begin with. Like 84Bill said, why should taxpayers have to pay to clean up for polluters? I know full well that's Bush's policy. What harm is there if the price of a product is a tad higher than to live in the consequences of a screwed up planet. As far as outsourcing, the damage is done, soon as CAFTA is passed, they can pollute to their hearts content without regulation down there. I don't understand why anyone would want to tolerate any kind of mercury, even natural amounts in our drinking water? If it prevented cancer, offsetted mercury levels we ingest from fish caught in polluted waters, prevented development and birth defects wouldn't it be worth it? Would lead in wall paint and gasoline still be acceptable as long as it didn't exceed lead levels elsewhere in the environment? Did the higher cost of unleaded paint and gas leave the economy in ruin?

[This message has been edited by Tigger (edited 12-07-2004).]

quote Originally posted by edhering: As for American sources of oil: the problem with what you recommend is that US oil still costs too much. Even at $50 per barrel, middle East oil is cheaper than US oil is. There's a variety of reasons, Ed

Ed is right. There's plenty of oil around in North America, but it's harder to get at and more costly to produce, and therefore most of these resources had not been developed. Why would they when we had all the cheap oil from the Middle East (once upon a time)? Canada only produces 2.6 million/bbls per day right now.

Oil companies pump billions of dollars into Canada's northern oil sands to develop the huge but expensive reserves of tar-like crude from the oil-sands. The National Energy Board estimates there are 1.6 trillion barrels of oil in the sands of which 178 billion barrels are recoverable. In theory, their capacity is second only to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, linchpin of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has about 300 billion barrels of reserves.

But where Saudi's cost of production is $5/bbl (maybe less), Canada's cost for heavy crude is about $12/bbl and the oil-sands cost is $18/bbl. It's no wonder that very little development of the oil-sands took place when oil was in the low $20/bbl range. NOW at $45+/bbl they wish they had huge refineries already up and running.
Full story here: http://www.peakoil.com/article806.html

Right now, Asian countries are eyeing our reserves http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/662757932.shtml

The companies producing from the oil-sands are Syncrude, Suncor (Sunoco), Shell, Imperial Oil (Esso), Husky, Encana, CNRL. In addition, these companies are also producing oil from conventional oil reserves.

GREAT photos of the Syncrude Plant here http://www.syncrude.ca/syn_library/images.html#1
Here it's mined. Other facilities extract the oil using in-situ SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage).

Canadian Oil Industry information (conventional, oil sands, natural gas) here:
http://www.capp.ca/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=688

PS - I've done design work on many of these Canadian oil/gas production facilities in the last 24 years.

------------------
Fiero Fiesta - July 24, 2005 - Calgary, Alberta <--- click this LINK

3.4L S/C 87 GT www.fierosound.com
2002/2003/2004 World of Wheels Winner &
Multiple IASCA Stereo Award Winner

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 12-08-2004).]