MR

The problem is that it is going to take 3-4 years for any consumer price impact.

I now favor offshore drilling, but I also fully support the windfall profits tax.

7 Wishes wrote:The problem is that it is going to take 3-4 years for any consumer price impact.

I now favor offshore drilling, but I also fully support the windfall profits tax
So if you support the windfall profits tax, that's less money for big oil to invest in exploration/drilling opportunities..

A lot of folks blame where we are today on windfall taxes implementing in the 80's, which served to curtail exploration/drilling which is causing us pain today.

7 Wishes wrote:The problem is that it is going to take 3-4 years for any consumer price impact.

I now favor offshore drilling, but I also fully support the windfall profits tax.

I predict prices would drop by a good margin if we started drilling where we were able because the OPEC countries would know we are serious about reducing our dependence on their product. Same thing happened a while back (in the 80's???). They just upped production and we started sucking on their teat again.

The windfall profits tax is a bad idea, in my opinion. Oil companies are entitled to make as much of a profit as they can, just like any other company. It won't help prices at all and it most likely isn't going to help with developing any alternative energy production. About the only thing it is guaranteed to do is to pass on the cost of it to the consumer as usual.

Too many people are suffering from the greed and profiteering of Big Oil. That's why I - and most Americans - fully support the tax.

The Democrats' argument that allowing offshore drilling hinders the procurement and development of newer non-carbon based technologies doesn't hold water. Clinton should have subsidized alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar and wind) more than the oil industry, as he promised in 1992, but he was apparently too busy with his Johnson to effect any substantial and/or groundbreaking legislation.

7 Wishes wrote:Too many people are suffering from the greed and profiteering of Big Oil. That's why I - and most Americans - fully support the tax.

The Democrats' argument that allowing offshore drilling hinders the procurement and development of newer non-carbon based technologies doesn't hold water. Clinton should have subsidized alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar and wind) more than the oil industry, as he promised in 1992, but he was apparently too busy with his Johnson to effect any substantial and/or groundbreaking legislation.

If you tax the oil comapnies, you can be DAMN SURE gas prices wil go up to compensate for it. Any time a corporation is taxed, they pass that tax onto the consumers or the employees.

Fact Finder wrote:

7 Wishes wrote:Too many people are suffering from the greed and profiteering of Big Oil. That's why I - and most Americans - fully support the tax.

The Democrats' argument that allowing offshore drilling hinders the procurement and development of newer non-carbon based technologies doesn't hold water. Clinton should have subsidized alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar and wind) more than the oil industry, as he promised in 1992, but he was apparently too busy with his Johnson to effect any substantial and/or groundbreaking legislation.

Idiot. The shareholders would disagree with you. Hundreds of millions of Exxons latest profit will be distributed to shareholders via divedends, that's right into the economy my friend, should we choose to spend it. Me I'm sheltering myself from jealous money grabbing thiefs like you.

No need for the idiot comment...But it is true that the dividends help the economy, not to mention that literally millions of shareholders own stock in oil companies. Teachers, policemen, janitors, etc. Millions of average, working class Americans make tons of money off them, thanks to 401k's, mutual funds, etc.

Barb wrote:

7 Wishes wrote:Too many people are suffering from the greed and profiteering of Big Oil. That's why I - and most Americans - fully support the tax.

The Democrats' argument that allowing offshore drilling hinders the procurement and development of newer non-carbon based technologies doesn't hold water. Clinton should have subsidized alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar and wind) more than the oil industry, as he promised in 1992, but he was apparently too busy with his Johnson to effect any substantial and/or groundbreaking legislation.

If you tax the oil comapnies, you can be DAMN SURE gas prices wil go up to compensate for it. Any time a corporation is taxed, they pass that tax onto the consumers or the employees.

Hey...I haven't seen you 'round these parts lately.

As much as I hate to agree with any Democrat sponsored bill, I think that Speculating sucks. The free market should allow honest people who ADD VALUE to raw materials, services, etc... to make whatever they can. However, speculators do nothing to add value to anything and only profit off somebody elses desperation. Here in Charlotte, much of the parabolic rise in uptown condo prices has to do with people who grab uptown tower shells with NO INTENTION whatsoever of ever living in them. They profit off someone else by grabbing available tower space and jacking up prices and add absolutely zero to the condo.

This is also true of oil prices. Speculators have much more to do with the profits oil companies have seen lately than the oil companies themselves. It is estimated that as much as 35% of the ENTIRE price of oil is due solely to speculation. Remove that 35% and gas is somewhere in the $2.60 range. If you think the oil companies are making way too much and you think they will continue to do so, my advice is to invest in them.

However, like all speculation, the bubble soon bursts. See the dot com bubble of 7-8 years ago. The housing bubble over the last year or so did the same thing. And it seems that FINALLY the oil bubble is doing the same thing.

BTW, 7 Wishes, look forward to meeting you tomorrow at either TGIFridays or at the concert.

DerriD wrote:As much as I hate to agree with any Democrat sponsored bill, I think that Speculating sucks. The free market should allow honest people who ADD VALUE to raw materials, services, etc... to make whatever they can. However, speculators do nothing to add value to anything and only profit off somebody elses desperation. Here in Charlotte, much of the parabolic rise in uptown condo prices has to do with people who grab uptown tower shells with NO INTENTION whatsoever of ever living in them. They profit off someone else by grabbing available tower space and jacking up prices and add absolutely zero to the condo.

This is also true of oil prices. Speculators have much more to do with the profits oil companies have seen lately than the oil companies themselves. It is estimated that as much as 35% of the ENTIRE price of oil is due solely to speculation. Remove that 35% and gas is somewhere in the $2.60 range. If you think the oil companies are making way too much and you think they will continue to do so, my advice is to invest in them.

However, like all speculation, the bubble soon bursts. See the dot com bubble of 7-8 years ago. The housing bubble over the last year or so did the same thing. And it seems that FINALLY the oil bubble is doing the same thing.

BTW, 7 Wishes, look forward to meeting you tomorrow at either TGIFridays or at the concert.

I forget what agricultural product it was that speculating was restricted/removed but the prices went out of control when that happened. Like it or not speculating probably does not do as much harm, if any, as some people are trying to say that it does.

Fact Finder wrote:Ok I'll recsind the idiot comment but jeez.,where has our education system gone?

Who forgot to teach simple math?

Dude, I am in NO MOOD TONIGHT. Cut the crap.

For every person (i.e. the very rich, for the most part) to receive a benefit from these record profits, there are 100 who suffer. And those janitors, et cetera, of whom you speak, know enough to realize every penny of their dividends will be spent on purchasing gasoline at these artificially inflated prices.

A component of the windfall profit tax that whitewashes your argument, Lie Finder, is that regulations would be put in place that would not allow companies to raise prices again as a consequence of the windfall tax. Those regulations could only be rescinded if that actual PROFIT MARGIN fell below the cutoff line.

7 Wishes wrote:A component of the windfall profit tax that whitewashes your argument, Lie Finder, is that regulations would be put in place that would not allow companies to raise prices again as a consequence of the windfall tax. Those regulations could only be rescinded if that actual PROFIT MARGIN fell below the cutoff line.

Oil companies profit margins are already lower than a majority of other industries. Besides that, this component of the windfall profit tax that companies couldn't raise prices is hogwash. There's no way to enforce that and no way to prove that prices were raised as a result of the tax. It's simply more smoke and mirrors by the already out of control governmental regulations.

DerriD wrote:BTW, 7 Wishes, look forward to meeting you tomorrow at either TGIFridays or at the concert.

Me too, dude!

That is one of my issues with the de-regulation of the oil industry that has occurred since 2000.

Look, I'm a socially liberal (albeit personally conservative) fiscal conservative. If I support offshore drilling, that should at least show I am open-minded and amenable to chance, as I used to completely oppose it. I have pointed out many times in the past few months that the price of gas is artificially inflated by speculators - laws that Bush wiped off the board which, incidentally, were put in place by Reagan to prevent what is happening right now.

Dave, the profit margin is the issue at hand, and in order to make billions of dollars in pure profit in one year, the difference between the costs incurred by Exxon versus what they charge the consumers is FORTY PER CENT.

7 Wishes wrote:Look, I'm a socially liberal (albeit personally conservative) fiscal conservative.

I am 100% TOTALLY with you on this one. Truth is, I think most people on both sides of the aisle are that way. We have unfortunately in the last 10-20 years gotten into trench warfare...party vs party. There simply seems to me no middle ground when we put the jersey on.

One thinking person talking to one thinking person is a completely different animal altogether. It reminds me (and forgive me for quoting 'Men in Black-the movie') but a PERSON can be reasoned with, but PEOPLE are crazy.

See ya tomorrow!

I heard on TV last week that Russia and China (I think) are drilling about 30 miles off the coast of Florida. THAT blew me away! They can do that since that area is considered international waters. I don't begin to try to claim that I have a clue about most of this stuff, but it just seems to me that if our coasts are that oil-rich, we should at least be getting a piece of that pie.

donnaplease wrote:I heard on TV last week that Russia and China (I think) are drilling about 30 miles off the coast of Florida. THAT blew me away! They can do that since that area is considered international waters. I don't begin to try to claim that I have a clue about most of this stuff, but it just seems to me that if our coasts are that oil-rich, we should at least be getting a piece of that pie.

Donna,

My inlaws live in Panhandle Florida. My Father in Law works closely with the military. The rumor has it that part of the U.S. long term plan concerning oil was to exhaust the Middle East all the while sitting on our reserves, i.e. let the enviromentalists think THEY are the ones stopping drilling in Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico. Once the Middle East taps out and we have the remaining oil reserves AND our wealth, WE dictate law to the world.

Makes for a great X-Files....right?!

Anyway, exactly what you brought up has accelerated our need to drill in the gulf.

At least that's what those 'in the know' are saying.

Fact Finder wrote:

7 Wishes wrote:Too many people are suffering from the greed and profiteering of Big Oil. That's why I - and most Americans - fully support the tax.

The Democrats' argument that allowing offshore drilling hinders the procurement and development of newer non-carbon based technologies doesn't hold water. Clinton should have subsidized alternative fuel sources (i.e. solar and wind) more than the oil industry, as he promised in 1992, but he was apparently too busy with his Johnson to effect any substantial and/or groundbreaking legislation.

Idiot. The shareholders would disagree with you. Hundreds of millions of Exxons latest profit will be distributed to shareholders via divedends, that's right into the economy my friend, should we choose to spend it. Me I'm sheltering myself from jealous money grabbing thiefs like you.

Ignorance. Few seem to understand (or care) about the links between national security and energy policy. Oil is a non-renewable resource estimated to run out in 45-50 years. US demand far outweighs domestic reserves...so continued dependency on foreign supply is unavoidable with a petroleum-based energy policy. The U.S. (not Europe) would have been the leader today in alternative energy had it not been for a powerful energy lobby, a lack of strong executive leadership, and an American public easily manipulated through fear and misinformation. If the U.S. waits too much longer to commit to alternative energy, there will be a severe depression in the not too distant future.

Fact Finder wrote:I guess the Dem leadership wants us peons to suffer higher gas prices. Gotta save the planet ya know.

PELOSI HOLDING FIRM, BLOCKING OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING VOTE...

(08-01) 04:00 PDT Washington --

For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling.

President Bush has made almost daily calls for Democratic leaders to take action. House GOP leaders, citing a new poll showing that a slim majority of Californians now favor offshore drilling, issued a release Thursday saying "even (Pelosi's) own California neighbors oppose her efforts to block new drilling far off American coasts." GOP lawmakers are so disgruntled they're urging Bush to deny Congress its August break by calling a special session on energy.

Some Democrats wary
Even some Democrats are getting antsy, fearing the party's stance could hurt them in the fall elections. But Pelosi, who has opposed offshore drilling throughout her two decades in Congress, insists opening new areas to drilling won't lower gas prices in the short term. She believes a vote would only help the GOP blame Democrats for high gas prices.

"I will not ... give the administration an excuse for its failure," Pelosi said at an end-of-session roundtable interview Thursday.

Republicans have put a bull's-eye on the federal moratorium on coastal drilling, which has kept most of the East and West coasts off limits to new oil rigs since 1982. Bush announced earlier this month that he would lift the presidential moratorium on drilling, and the GOP is now seeking to lift the congressional ban.

Pelosi drew derision from her critics for telling the Web site Politico this week that she was blocking a vote on offshore drilling because "I'm trying to save the planet." But she elaborated on that theme Thursday, saying she sees energy independence and fighting global warming as "my flagship issue." She said she will use her power to resist a policy that could increase the country's oil dependency.

"I'm not going to be diverted for a political tactic from a course of action that has a big-picture view - a vision about an energy-independent future that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels ... and focuses on those renewables that are protective of the environment," she said.

Republicans are quietly gleeful at Pelosi's tactics, which have only breathed more life into an issue the GOP is clinging to as a lifeline in an otherwise grim year for the party. Some House Republicans said Thursday that they will ask Bush to order a special session of Congress in August if lawmakers adjourn this week, as expected, without voting on drilling.

While a special session is unlikely, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, made clear that his party plans to use the issue as a bludgeon against Democrats throughout the five-week August recess.

Does this make sense to anyone?

they love the thought of 10.00 a gallaon of gas until January20, 2009... then OBAMA will decry and say lets do off shore drilling and the democrats will be waging their tongues **FIRST BRILLIANT MOVE BY OBAMA.. mark my words.

Rick

Rick

Fact Finder wrote:Ok I'll recsind the idiot comment but jeez.,where has our education system gone?

Who forgot to teach simple math?

Apparently you didn't learn it all either.
You failed to add refining into the calculation, despite that being the favorite excuse for price hikes by Big Oil.
Until and unless Big Oil spends some of their "hard earned" money on new refining capacity, SUPPLY will continue to exceed DEMAND and the price can continue to be artificially inflated at the chokepoint known as "refining capacity"
There is no shortage of petroleum as much as there is a lack of refining capacity.

"EASY- To- Get" oil may becoming scarce, but there are vast deposits of oil bearing sand, shale deposits and the similarly composited oil bearing materials.
That will require a bit more "work" than sticking a straw in the melon and sucking the juice out.
That will require a bit more than "simple anything" to extract and bring to market.
A required something that hasn't been present in the American Market in a long time.... a sense of NEED, of urgency for our own best interests, not CORPORATE "our" but NATIONAL "our".
Modern Corporations prove their sociopathy in these times by taking their "business uber alles" stance.
Citizens show their brainwashing by parroting it as well.
Politicians show who they serve by their very deeds.
The Modern American Philosophy has been perverted to be .... Business Needs > The People's Needs.
I don't think John Adams or Thomas Jefferson ever envisioned "juristic Persona" to be greater than that of a real live citizen.

Maybe the Dems knew that the lobbyist are only working for the Republicans.. and they want there fair share. Just saw on the PBS last night about the Abramoff and the Alaskan Senator's involvement with the oil companys dealings. and well it also involved.. guess who? the administration!

Isnt it ironic that we have a president who is a former oilman and a vp with a energy background and gas/energy prices are soaring??

janus65 wrote:Isnt it ironic that we have a president who is a former oilman and a vp with a energy background and gas/energy prices are soaring??

Get back to me IF Obama is elected and the prices go down.

1. Total domestic reserves make up just a small fraction of the world supply.
2. The U.S. has the largest demand for fossil fuels in the world.
3. Global supply is finite, and is estimated to run out in 45-50 years.
4. Global demand is rising.
5. The ability to increase supply in the short-term is limited.
6. The ability to reduce demand in the short-term is completely within the control of the average American consumer. Thankfully, this is already taking place as the big three automobile manufacturers are now finding out (the demand for new trucks and large vehicles has fallen to about 1/3 of what it was).

Other nations have understood the importance of energy independence (some countries in Europe are already 50% energy independent, getting their electricity from alternative energy sources). Even China understands that its countinued global advantage depends on alternative energy)...it is in the process of building the "Three Gorges" hydroelectic power dam that when completed will be the largest of its kind in the world and will provide nearly all of its domestic electricity needs.

Obama is smart, and is a man of conviction and compassion. He understands that without a gradual, yet committed turn toward alternative energy the U.S. would merely be prolonging the inevitable and exacerbating the eventual economic and political consequences (ex. the war in Iraq has already cost $700 billion and 4,000 plus American lives). Imagine the lost benefits of using this $700 billion to smooth the transition to alternative energy?

Increasing domestic production would have little or no effect in the short term, or even arguably in the longterm (global demand will rise faster than increased domestic production can add to global supply). We should remember what happened with the oil embargo in the 1970s. Domestic production (esp. in TX, CA, and AL) increased dramatically, engorging the oil companies and some wildcat speculators and drillers. The U.S. economy still languished well into the 1980s, when in direct response to Japanese competition the big automakers finally embraced the idea of designing and manufacturing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. It was incredible that it took almost ten years for them to finally do so. In the meantime, the Japanese gained market share and put the U.S. into a balance of payments (trade imbalance) crisis with Japan that has racked the U.S. economy ever since (Japanese investors went on to gobble up cheap U.S. assets and continue to reap the profits that should have been going to American investors). The result was an enormous loss in treasure for the U.S. that cannot be easily, if ever, recovered fully.

Fast forward to circa 2000, when the average price per gallon in the U.S. was about $1.50. The price has tripled in the last 8 years during which Bush's Republican administration did little, if anything, to decrease the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the contrary, waging war in Iraq and creating a foreign policy that has increased instability has greaty added to the PERCEIVED value of oil. Gimmicky tax breaks and capricious interest rate cuts forestalled a necessary economic correction. How many Americans would not be in danger of losing their homes, had the government adequately regulated the mortgage industry? Absolutely nothing was done to discourage Americans from buying homes at double or triple the previous price. In short, the bubble was allowed to grow to unsafe levels and then burst leaving millions of Americans in dire circumstances. I doubt Bush has lost much sleep though...he got his re-election and he and his comrades raked in unprecedented oil-related profits.

The worst part? how gullible we (the American public) were, and arguably some of us still are. We had every reason to suspect something was wrong, but were too easily placated and self-satisfied to even give a damn about the underlying health of the economy and our energy future, let alone the education and present-and-future well-being of American families. It will take forward-thinking leadership to ensure a bright future for America, not reactionary responses and favoring the status quo.

Keeping this post to a minimum, what Calbear94 says is dead-on. Petroleum based fuel is as fast food compared to alternative. Fast food is quick and cheap. The repercussion is accelerated death. Healthy conscious eating habits cost more but considerably the better choice. Upfront costs for alternative fuels are expensive but return gains offset the initial cost. Petroleum refineries are few and costly. Who do you think started the bio-diesel alternative? It was the "backyard" environmentalist/scientist. Start growing a "Victory Garden" and start eating "healthy".

cudaclan wrote:Keeping this post to a minimum, what Calbear94 says is dead-on. Petroleum based fuel is as fast food compared to alternative. Fast food is quick and cheap. The repercussion is accelerated death. Healthy conscious eating habits cost more but considerably the better choice. Upfront costs for alternative fuels are expensive but return gains offset the initial cost. Petroleum refineries are few and costly. Who do you think started the bio-diesel alternative? It was the "backyard" environmentalist/scientist. Start growing a "Victory Garden" and start eating "healthy".

The U.S. and every other country in the world are nowhere near ready to be weaned off oil. Yes, we should spend money on alternative energy but getting off oil isn't going to happen any time soon. Gore said we need to do it in 10 years. Not gonna happen.

conversationpc wrote:

cudaclan wrote:Keeping this post to a minimum, what Calbear94 says is dead-on. Petroleum based fuel is as fast food compared to alternative. Fast food is quick and cheap. The repercussion is accelerated death. Healthy conscious eating habits cost more but considerably the better choice. Upfront costs for alternative fuels are expensive but return gains offset the initial cost. Petroleum refineries are few and costly. Who do you think started the bio-diesel alternative? It was the "backyard" environmentalist/scientist. Start growing a "Victory Garden" and start eating "healthy".

The U.S. and every other country in the world are nowhere near ready to be weaned off oil. Yes, we should spend money on alternative energy but getting off oil isn't going to happen any time soon. Gore said we need to do it in 10 years. Not gonna happen.

We lag behind many countries with alternative energy. Do the research, do a search.

cudaclan wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

cudaclan wrote:Keeping this post to a minimum, what Calbear94 says is dead-on. Petroleum based fuel is as fast food compared to alternative. Fast food is quick and cheap. The repercussion is accelerated death. Healthy conscious eating habits cost more but considerably the better choice. Upfront costs for alternative fuels are expensive but return gains offset the initial cost. Petroleum refineries are few and costly. Who do you think started the bio-diesel alternative? It was the "backyard" environmentalist/scientist. Start growing a "Victory Garden" and start eating "healthy".

The U.S. and every other country in the world are nowhere near ready to be weaned off oil. Yes, we should spend money on alternative energy but getting off oil isn't going to happen any time soon. Gore said we need to do it in 10 years. Not gonna happen.

We lag behind many countries with alternative energy. Do the research, do a search.

More than just energy. The thing with this country is, they try to milk every last dollar out of anything before they move on to something better. It slows us down. Greed is our enemy here.

cudaclan wrote:Keeping this post to a minimum, what Calbear94 says is dead-on. Petroleum based fuel is as fast food compared to alternative. Fast food is quick and cheap. The repercussion is accelerated death. Healthy conscious eating habits cost more but considerably the better choice. Upfront costs for alternative fuels are expensive but return gains offset the initial cost. Petroleum refineries are few and costly. Who do you think started the bio-diesel alternative? It was the "backyard" environmentalist/scientist. Start growing a "Victory Garden" and start eating "healthy".

George Washington Carver, in partnership with Henry Ford, invented soy diesel back in the 1940's. However, the discovery of massive oil reserves in the Middle East in the 1930s made oil extremely cheap and the development of soy diesel unattractive.

In my opinion, the only way proponents of alternative energy will prevail in the current energy debate is if the focus is on the green that can be saved in your wallet, not the environmentalism green.

For example, I think all Americans should know that inexpensive, photovoltaic film is available for consumer use right now, and that a complete system for the home would cost about $20,000 (without even a subsidy from the government!). Even in the middle latitudes, there is enough sunlight to yield enough power for the home. Homes in southern regions would actually produce a surplus of electricity which would actually be fed back into the grid at wholesale prices, earning you a monthly check from the power company. Homes in Alaska and some of other more northerner reaches would need a hybrid energy system, but for the average homeowner in the U.S. the cost of the system would be repaid in the form of energy savings in about 12 years. All it would take is a little incentive, whether in the form of consumer rebates, tax breaks to building contractors, or special commecial interest rates to mortgage lenders. There really is no excuse why this technology is not a standard feature of new home construction today, since such a system would add value to the home and since most homes are financed over 30 years.

Testimony regarding photovoltaic system:

http://www.ka9q.net/pv/


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/23/wind.turbines/

Vitals for Windfarm project 12 miles DE offshore:

$1.6 Billion cost
150 Turbines
Electricity to power 50,000
25 year project life cycle

Where do we get our oil? Next-door neighbors are good company.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brie ... ndence.cfm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

Taking a proactive approach of renewable energy (not amused). One-step backwards for humankind.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/18064

Fact Finder wrote:The problem is as you say, inadequte supply. However the reason for this is that more and more gas is being imported. In 1982 America had 263 working refineries. In 2002 we were down to 159. The Greenies and the NIMBY types have put the oil companies in a vice where it was cost prohibitive to keep those refineries open and or to expand in America. Now, more and more refineries are bing built in the Middle East and the gas is then shipped. More than anything else this is the main reason for the price increase. We've chased these business's <b>out of our neighborhoods</b> and overseas.

Economic benefit aside, are you sure you want a refinery in YOUR neighborhood? Refinery accidents are frequent and emissions toxic...heavy metals, carcinogens, really nasty stuff.

Here is a recent accident summary from just one county in California alone (Contra Costa County):

http://www.cchealth.org/groups/hazmat/a ... istory.php

Thinking, for a moment, as a nation and not an individual investor.... Would you invest in an industry, or the production of a particular commodity, that you knew would run out by the middle of this century. Or, would you take financial resources and invest in technologies that could pay for themselves over a 25 year period?

Coal served its usefulness during the Second Industrial Revolution to be sure, but with clean renewable energy available I cannot understand why it is still being used to generate electricity.

Check out the Centralia, Pennsylvania coal mine fire that has been burning since 1962:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia%2C_Pennsylvania