Pelosi [D] blocks offshore drilling vote GOP wants

[cudaclan]

Notice the “supply&demand” with production from United States.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm

Compare this chart based upon “supply”, notice OPEC’s contribution, compared to our neighbor and our own production.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Where is this shortage?

Stu, quote” Second, that was in 1969 and techology has evolved considerably since then.”

The technology was there;

“What Went Wrong?

Union Oil's Platform A ruptured because of inadequate protective casing. The oil company had been given permission by the U.S. Geological Survey to cut corners and operate the platform with casings below federal and California standards. Investigators would later determine that more steel pipe sheating inside the drilling hole would have prevented the rupture.”

When profit$ are to be made, $tuff happens.

[Calbear94]

Here's a renewable energy plan proposed by, of all people, oilman Boone Pickens. I think it makes sense and it also shows that energy independence does not have to be strictly a political issue.

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

[AlienC]

Corporations have no loyalty to anything or anyone except Mammon and Lucre. Despite their existence as "people" in a legal sense, the absence of any soul within that construct makes that entity sociopathic in it's very being. They only serve their own interests. That ANY social benefit is derived is simply an afterthought or a ploy to extract more profit.

Wow! So down down really deep you feel this way about Journey and rock music too. After all, they are corporations too, right?

Take off your blinders and take a good look around.

It's sad that you can be so down on excess. Give it a try sometime, you might like it.

Fixed it for ya.
And if you will allow for the differentiation between the Journey Corporation THEN and Journey Corporation NOW, (both of which I have more than just a passing knowlege of, thank you very much), I'll take Journey Corp. THEN for a thousand, Alex. THEN cared for it's underlings, ooops I mean EMPLOYEES better in every way possible.
That is what drove the innovation that helped to propel the band in terms of production elements that they still utilize to this day. Although not as many share in it, nor is it anywhere near the same in terms of marketshare as it once was, but they do ok.

And as to my main point, when the multi-national corporations and their lobbyist whores can no longer flaunt Federal Laws with impunity ( declaring Bankruptcy / reforming under a new Corporate Name to escape prosecution / Personal Asset Shield for Principals despite Felonious conduct), when they no longer buy and trade politicians like drunken sailors do with the Bar girls in Subic Bay, and when I can truck ANYTHING into Mexico like they can here, then I'll concede that point. and buy the beer.... as long as I can pay in DOLLARS and not in AMERO's.

[Greg]

Personally, this is not a financial issue; it is a conscience, moral and ethical belief.

Yes it is a financial issue.

[artist4perry]

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.

Too many of our congressmen and women have hands in the cookie Jar. We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual". I think it should be a crime for them to make money off of special intrest groups.

[cudaclan]

Personally, this is not a financial issue; it is a conscience, moral and ethical belief.

Yes it is a financial issue.

Agreed Greg, it is a financial issue. My response was to Fact Finder’s comment. I expect the price of fuel dropping. I also expect prior to the next vacation weekend that the price will rise. It is predictable as people travel during vacation week and holidays. Is this the supply and demand scenario or manipulation of the market?

cudaclan wrote:
The ramification in ownership of these defunct military bases is the proverbial “White Elephant”. The military refuses to comply with the EPA and the taxpayers will absorb the burden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews



"So you don't want new refineries. I get that. What about lowering gas prices?”

[Calbear94]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Alternative fuels are economically feasible now. For example, Brazil has been able to meet 50% of its fuel needs with ethanol.

However, it takes government commitment, and in our system, that means the support of the people, to effect change. The big oil companies use high-paid lobbyists and bankroll candidates to make sure their concerns are taken into account. What are we, the people, doing to ensure that our needs are being met? We can't expect the transition to happen by itself...we the people must lead on this issue. The big oil companies have had 30+ years to diversify themselves into alternative energy. Some of these companies have, but nowhere near to the extent necessary. These companies also profit from the refining of foreign oil, so they don't have as much of a reason to be concerned about America's dependence on foreign oil. In fact, they have pressured our government and manipulated public opinion in times of energy-related economic crisis to allow further exploration in increasingly marginal domestic oil reserves (thanks to RVR for this last piece of information which came from reading about Peak theory). All the while, despite new drilling, real fuel prices remain high overall.

How is it that our country has the resources to fight a questionable war in Iraq with a price tag, in monetary terms only, of $700 billion...yet, we worry about making a stronger commitment towards adopting alternative fuels? Take a look at Boone Pickens' description of the damaging effects that this growing dependence on foreign oil is having on our economy. Think about the cumulative effects of this massive loss of treasure. Let's put aside the environmental controversy for a moment and consider the medium and longterm economic consequences.

[conversationpc]

Alternative fuels are economically feasible now. For example, Brazil has been able to meet 50% of its fuel needs with ethanol.

Alternative fuels are nowhere near economically feasible for meeting the needs of most of the world. Much of the world is pissed at us for using a good portion of our food suppy in order to generate ethanol. Really pissed. That's not to mention that it costs more to convert corn to ethanol than it is worth. It is one of the biggest red herrings in the whole energy debate.

Gore thinks we should do it within 10 years. I think we should invest in alternative energy ideas but not at the expense of gas/oil prices now.

[7 Wishes]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Bullshit. The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

[RedWingFan]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Bullshit. The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.

[conversationpc]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Bullshit. The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.

Will the libs then be crying about "big sunshine"?

[Rick]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Bullshit. The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.

Will the libs then be crying about "big sunshine"?

Now dammit, that was funny!

[conversationpc]

Will the libs then be crying about "big sunshine"?

Now dammit, that was funny!

Something tells me that mantra won't be as effective as "Big oil!"

[RocknRoll]

We won't see alternitive fuels until we start getting rid of the ones who like "buisness as usual".

We will see alternative fuels when and if they are economically feasable. Right now nothing can compete with oil on this grand a scale.

Bullshit. The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

This is Big Oil. Look it up.

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/cedarcreek/

http://www.gtsolar.com/news/shownews.php?id=43

"BP Solar is the world's largest manufacturer of PV systems with manufacturing facilities worldwide. The added manufacturing capacity is part of BP Solar's plan to expand photovoltaic systems production worldwide"

[Calbear94]

...The tecnhology exists right now for America to derive 90% of its energy needs from solar within 10 years. The problem is no President will subsidize any alternative fuel industry, as Big Oil is in their collective back pockets.

I agree...very well said.

"BP Solar is the world's largest manufacturer of PV systems with manufacturing facilities worldwide. The added manufacturing capacity is part of BP Solar's plan to expand photovoltaic systems production worldwide"

BP is a great, but rare, example of an MNC oil company (and it is British-owned) that seems to understand that the key to dominating the global energy market in future lies in alternative energy. Had its competitors embraced alternative energy in the same fashion, we may have had more breakthru innovations earlier.

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASABLE.

Alternative energy is viable, but there are powerful forces that continue to block it.

If our government grants the big oil companies new leases to "virgin" oil fields, this will amount to a major subsidy because these companies already hold plenty of leases on other public lands, because the cost of production is much lower. Also, by continuing an energy policy based on oil, when alternative technologies are ready the government is, in essence, bailing out big oil for not having sufficiently diversified.

Historically, the government has either led, or made possible, most major technological paradigm shifts, so there are plenty of precedents for government support for alternative energy:

1. The Transcontinental Railroad would never have been built without public land grants, wars of conquest over native populations at public expense, and legal changes (eminent domain).
2. Canals, Roads and Turnpikes built at public expense which spurred interstate commerce in the 19th century.
3. Cutrate commercial bank lending which sparked consumer spending in the 1920s - this allowed many fledgling industries to begin to grow and to reinvest profits. Examples include the automobile industry and home appliance industries.
4. Construction of interstate highways in the post WWII era which greatly boosted the automobile industry by providing an extensive modern network upon which to drive. This also greatly benefited the construction industries by making suburban housing boom possible.
5. Satellite communications and entertainment have become ubiquitous in modern daily life. These industries were born out of a aerospace program that has cost the government billions of dollars each year since the late 50s.

In each of these cases, the decision to support technological expansion depended on the overall economic benefit to be gained by the American public. We are at a key point in our history where we can choose to either embrace the future or cling to the past. Alternative energy may appear to be expensive, but the vast majority that will be spent on it will remain right here in the US in terms of jobs and investment profits. The problem with oil, which most of it is foreign, is explained by Boone Pickens:

"At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war. Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind."

This is money that is not re-invested into our economy...and, in fact, is a severe drain on it.

Domestically produced ethanol and soy diesel are not bad alternatives to gasoline and diesel. Hybrid cars running on ethanol and electricity (from mostly solar, wind, and hydroelectric sources) would allow us to still drive medium-sized vehicles without changing driving habits. I used the Brazillian example to show that it is possible for a country to substantially ween itself off of foreign oil, and to keep fuel profits at home. Brazil uses mostly sugar, which is a surplus crop, to produce its ethanol. The US, under Bush's leadership, botched its first significant entry into ethanol production by using corn (which isn't surprising due to the powerful commercial agriculture lobby). Switchgrass, which grows abundantly in semi-arid areas and is not needed as a staple food crop, would have been a much better choice.

Alternative energy is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream as global examples have shown. Now, rather than later, is the time to make the serious move towards alternative energy while we have the time and the flexibility to do so and while we also have the impetus for change.

[Calbear94]

Dude, wake up. T. Boone is trying to sell you air. Invest with him if it's your choice.

Please do not forget that he has invested oil profits into his $12 billion dollar wind turbine project.

I wouldn't laugh. If Obama wins and the Democrats expand their majorities in both houses (as expected), investing in alternative energy might just be a smart, longterm investment. People with venture-type capital would likely become the newest billionaires.

[7 Wishes]

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

Um, then by that logic, the oil industry should not exist. It is the most highly subsidized industry in the world, and yet it continues to yield record profits.

[RossValoryRocks]

If a President NEEDS TO SUBSIDIZE it, then it's NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

Um, then by that logic, the oil industry should not exist. It is the most highly subsidized industry in the world, and yet it continues to yield record profits.

HAHAHAHA! Come on man...be realistic...Oil is not subsidized...it does get some tax breaks for investing it's own money in things like :::GASP::: alternative energy, finding new sources of oil, better extraction techniques for older oil fields to get more out of them...but they are NOT subsidised at all.

By the way...most of oils tax breaks are the same as any business gets for investing money back into itself.

You want to pay $8.00/Gal then follow Obama off a cliff and hit oil with a "Windfall profits tax" and take away the tax breaks...hell it might hit $12.00/Gal as the oil companies will simply pass it on to us the consumers.

Obama is idealistc and naive on energy policy and if he gets elected he will not improve the economy he will destroy it.

[WalrusOct9]

This is the stupidest idea I've heard yet on the oil crisis. It'd be a decade before we'd see any of the results, and even then, they'd be minimal at best...ten years that would be far better spent investing in alternate energy sources.

[Calbear94]

"At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war. Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind."

Enough of this nonsense. Buying oil from overseas is not a transfer of wealth, it is the purchase of a fungible good in exchange for money. We derive a great deal of good from this exchange. Buying a Big Mac/DVD/shoes/etc.. is not a transfer of wealth, and neither is buying oil.

A transfer of wealth is better explained by looking to welfare and social programs via the Great Society. Obamas plan to take money from Big Oil and send every American a check is a transfer of wealth.

I forget who said it, but we all need to remember...."A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, will always be supported by Paul."

We have alot of Pauls on this forum.

You are confusing "transfer of wealth" with "re-distribution of wealth." There is a huge difference. Transfer of wealth occurs when you have a severe trade imbalance. The vast majority of the oil that we import is refined into gasoline. Jet fuel, plastics, and fertilizers are, no doubt, important uses for oil. Noone is arguing for the complete abandonment of oil production. If we can power our homes and our vehicles using domestic (alternative) energy sources, then we would not be losing any of the "benefits of oil" and in the process would be keeping hundreds of billions of dollars right here in the USA.

Large transfers of wealth have disastrous effects on an economy. Take, for example, the massive 1980s trade imbalance with Japan. The hard hit experienced by the US auto industry has been well documented. Fortunately, it was able to rebound about a decade later. The disastrous impact on continued, however. With the massive trade imbalance, the dollar plummeted in value compared to the yen. This made US companies, land, and assets extremely cheap for Japanese investors. For their part Japanese investors did what any smart investor would do...invest in a national economy that was certain to rebound. They bought movie studios, record companies, massive tracts of residential and commercial property (especially in the west), etc. In the past decade and a half, these assets have generated massive profits and increased enormously in value. The same thing is occurring with Saudi investors right now.

Redistribution of wealth, in the form of social welfare programs, has nothing to do with this debate over energy policy.

[RedWingFan]

There's obviously enough oil to run Al Gore's new 100ft houseboat.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/021182.php

He Probably Won't Invite Us to Go On a Cruise, But There Would Be Plenty Of Room

Global warming hysteria has been very good to Al Gore. He's made a fortune on his book, his movie, and associated enterprises. How does he spend that fortune? Most recently by buying a 100-foot houseboat; how else?



People don't usually think of 100-foot houseboats with gigantic, fuel-burning engines as a low-footprint form of entertainment. But Gore, characteristically, claims that he owns a green 100-foot houseboat, the "Toyota Prius of houseboats," as the yacht's builder puts it. Gore christened his boat Bio-Solar 1--"BS 1" for short--because it runs on bio-diesel fuel and, one of these days, Gore is planning on adding solar panels. I'm not sure just what the solar panels will do, but they definitely won't be powering the craft's gigantic engine or engines.

Gore assures us that his 100-foot houseboat is so "green" that it "will create 40-50% less carbon emission and use half the fuel of other similar houseboats." Let's take that claim at face value. I haven't been able to find data on carbon emissions by "similar houseboats"--there aren't many 100-foot houseboats around--but I located this information about a much smaller (60 foot) houseboat:

Generally speaking, they burn just on 10 gals an hour at full cruising speed. (10 mph) This includes the Westebeak generator's 1.5 gal an hour to look after electricity. Whilst anchored, depending on how cold the air conditioning is and other power outlets running, the generator will burn just over 1 gal an hour 24/7.
If we assume that a boat spends six hours cruising (60 gallons) and 18 hours at anchor (18 gallons), that boat--one-half the size of Gore's--will consume 78 gallons of fuel for every 24 hours of use. Let's take Gore at his word and assume that his much larger boat will emit just half as much carbon into the atmosphere as this benchmark. That would be 39 gallons per 24 hours. If you get 25 miles per gallon in your car, you would have to drive 975 miles--farther than from Chicago to New York--to emit an equal amount of carbon. And that doesn't count the jetski on the back of Gore's elephantine boat, which, you can be sure, takes real gasoline:



Personally, I don't care whether Al Gore spends his entire day pursuing gasoline sports--four-wheeling, flying private airplanes, cruising in an over-sized yacht. He's rich, and he's entitled. But Gore got rich by telling the rest of us that the planet faces a crisis, that civilization is threatened, and that it is urgently necessary for all of us to stop emitting carbon at the earliest possible moment. Meanwhile, Gore himself goes out of his way--after all, most of us get by without cruising on 100-foot boats--to emit extraordinary amounts of carbon.

It is reasonable to conclude that Gore does not really believe that the planet is undergoing some kind of crisis, and does not really believe that a high priority should be placed on reducing carbon emissions. He is in it, in other words, for the money.

[Calbear94]

...You want to pay $8.00/Gal then follow Obama off a cliff and hit oil with a "Windfall profits tax" and take away the tax breaks...hell it might hit $12.00/Gal as the oil companies will simply pass it on to us the consumers...

If we don't commit to alternative energy soon, then higher oil prices is what we can expect for the future. The longer we wait, the higher the eventual price of oil will be.

[Calbear94]

...Obama is idealistc and naive on energy policy and if he gets elected he will not improve the economy he will destroy it.

Quite the contrary, he is intelligent and well-versed regarding energy matters. Naive is McCain proclaiming that he is for energy change, while merely arguing for a continuation of the status quo. He took $1 million from big oil in July alone and then he unveils his plan for domestic expansion in the gulf. Also, the vast majority of his personal wealth comes from his wife, Cyndi, whose family own a large auto dealership empire in Arizona. Don't think for a second that the recent rise in gas prices has not significantly curtailed auto sales.

The other brilliant focal point of McCain's policy is to build 45 new nuclear power reactors...a forty percent increase in the number of such facilities in the US. This, in essence, would be turning back the clock on energy development in the U.S. thirty years!...back to the 70s when the last major oil expansion (ALASKA) took place, and when many of the current nuclear power facilities were built. This is what McCain considers to be moving forward? McCain's energy plan would also damage the U.S.'s already diminished foreign policy reputation around the world. To simultaneously be trying to lead global nuclear non-proliferation and expanding the use of nuclear technology at home reeks of hypocrisy and stupidity. Talk about non-sense...geesh.

[RossValoryRocks]

...You want to pay $8.00/Gal then follow Obama off a cliff and hit oil with a "Windfall profits tax" and take away the tax breaks...hell it might hit $12.00/Gal as the oil companies will simply pass it on to us the consumers...

If we don't commit to alternative energy soon, then higher oil prices is what we can expect for the future. The longer we wait, the higher the eventual price of oil will be.

You are an absolute nit-wit. If we DRILL now...we won't need foreign oil in 10 years...hell there are capped off oil wells in California that we could start up in under a year...there are other areas we could start up in less that 3 years.

You fucking libs idiots need help you really do...you do not understand a god damned thing about economics or energy.

[RossValoryRocks]

...Obama is idealistc and naive on energy policy and if he gets elected he will not improve the economy he will destroy it.

Quite the contrary, he is intelligent and well-versed regarding energy matters. Naive is McCain proclaiming that he is for energy change, while merely arguing for a continuation of the status quo. He took $1 million from big oil in July alone and then he unveils his plan for domestic expansion in the gulf. Also, the vast majority of his personal wealth comes from his wife, Cyndi, whose family own a large auto dealership empire in Arizona. Don't think for a second that the recent rise in gas prices has not significantly curtailed auto sales.

The other brilliant focal point of McCain's policy is to build 45 new nuclear power reactors...a forty percent increase in the number of such facilities in the US. This, in essence, would be turning back the clock on energy development in the U.S. thirty years!...back to the 70s when the last major oil expansion (ALASKA) took place, and when many of the current nuclear power facilities were built. This is what McCain considers to be moving forward? McCain's energy plan would also damage the U.S.'s already diminished foreign policy reputation around the world. To simultaneously be trying to lead global nuclear non-proliferation and expanding the use of nuclear technology at home reeks of hypocrisy and stupidity. Talk about non-sense...geesh.

I take it back...you aren't a nit-wit, you are just fucking stupid.

His wifes wealth is from a beer distribution company, and he is not allowed to touch by pre-nup.

Nuclear power is not the same thing, or ever CLOSE, to nuclear proliferation.

Iran doesn't want nuclear power moron, they want a BOMB, that is nuclear proliferation.

Peaceful use of nuclear power is IDEAL, and is encouraged by us and the rest of the world. We offered to give to Iran the type of reactor that doesn't require enriched fuel, they won't do it (see the statement above about the bomb). The newer technology allows teh reactor to use uranium that has a much lower enrichment level and therefore produces a smaller amount of nuclear waste.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about

Yup moron, just keep following the new liberal messiah off the cliff.

[Don]

So, are we one of the only civilized countries that won't be going Nuclear in the near future? Even Jerry Brown's singing a different tune, 35 years after he signed the bill that banned reactor development in California. Are we that afraid of ourselves?

[Calbear94]

I take it back...you aren't a nit-wit, you are just fucking stupid.

Thank you. Your civility is only surpassed by your reasonableness to consider opposing viewpoints.

His wifes wealth is from a beer distribution company...

You're right, I misspoke on that. However, it doesn't change the fact that McCain accepted $1 million from big oil, while at the same time announcing his goal of further drilling...a fact you conveniently glossed over in your tirade.

...and he is not allowed to touch by pre-nup.

Who cares? In the event of a divorce he won't be able to take her assets, but he can certainly enjoy them to the extent that she is while they are married. I don't have a problem with this. Kerry did the same by marrying into the Heinz family. This is a non-issue for me personally. There are others (link below) though who have gone to great lengths to show just how much McCain has benefited....which counters his feeble attempt to paint himself as a common man.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11477.html

...Nuclear power is not the same thing, or ever CLOSE, to nuclear proliferation. Iran doesn't want nuclear power moron, they want a BOMB, that is nuclear proliferation.

These two sentences contradict each other in that since the revelation of the Pakistani scientist selling the plans to build bombs, the focus has shifted to uranium enrichment. As you implied, when uranium is enriched for nuclear power, it can be further enriched for nuclear weapons. To develop 45 nuclear power facilities, we would have dramatically increase the amount of uranium that we are enriching. To do so when we are trying to discourage uranium enrichment around the world is hypocritical, especially when we have plenty of other sources from which to generate power.

...Peaceful use of nuclear power is IDEAL, and is encouraged by us and the rest of the world. We offered to give to Iran the type of reactor that doesn't require enriched fuel, they won't do it (see the statement above about the bomb). The newer technology allows teh reactor to use uranium that has a much lower enrichment level and therefore produces a smaller amount of nuclear waste..

So, we and five other nations gets to decide which countries have the right to enrich uranium and which do not. McCain's plan would hinder our diplomatic ability with other nations (which I promise you do not forget that the U.S. is the only country in the history of the world to use this technology to further military objectives). Nuclear power is not worth the risk. Waste, regardless of quantity, remains radioactive for 50-100 years. Nuclear accidents can occur (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc). What right do we have to endanger our own people, let alone the people of other nations and of future generations? Talk about hypocrisy.

...You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

No. I have no idea why I am debating with you...you have no concept of civil debate.

...Yup moron, just keep following the new liberal messiah off the cliff.

Politicizing an economic issue only makes the underlying problems more difficult to solve.

[7 Wishes]

HAHAHAHA! Come on man...be realistic...Oil is not subsidized...it does get some tax breaks for investing it's own money in things like :::GASP::: alternative energy, finding new sources of oil, better extraction techniques for older oil fields to get more out of them...but they are NOT subsidised at all.

That's not correct at all, Stu.

The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) released a report titled, "Sensible Energy Policies," in March 2001. The report detailed the various types of subsides oil companies receive: gas and oil loan guarantees, overseas refiner credits, enhanced oil recovery credits, intangible drilling costs credits, and depletion allowances. SEC recommended that each type of subsidy by eliminated by Congress.

In 1916 the federal government created the first tax breaks for oil and gas companies. After almost 90 years of taxpayer-funded subsidies, the oil and gas industries are flourishing but taxpayers still continue to contribute billions annually to the energy sector.

In 1999 the government created guaranteed loans of up to $10 million for eligible oil and gas producers. The loans are financed through private banking and investment institutions, but are guaranteed by federal taxes, "making liable for up to $500 million should the companies default," according to the SEC report, and "that number jumps to $600 million if the administrative costs associated with the program are included.

Over $400 million of overseas refinery taxes are subsidized by federal taxes "which increases refinery capacity overseas rather than within our own borders," the SEC report stated.

Oil companies may be eligible for a 15 percent tax credit for recovering the costs of recovering domestic oil if they use "enhanced oil recovery" methods. The methods involve injecting gas, fluids and other chemicals into the oil reservoir, or using heat to extract the oil.

Tax code provisions allow integrated oil and gas companies to deduct 70 percent of their intangible drilling costs, and deduct the other 30 percent over five years. Intangible drilling costs are "defined as the cost of wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, supplies and site preparations associated with drilling."

Certain oil, gas and uranium producers are eligible for a subsidy under the tax code. Oil companies can deduct 15 percent from their drilling costs, but some independent oil companies can deduct 100 percent

[7 Wishes]

The top ten oil company PACs giving to Members of Congress in 2006-2007 were:

* ExxonMobil giving $265,050 (90% to Republicans)
* ChevronTexaco giving $167,000 (77% to Republicans)
* Occidental $156,590 (89% to Republicans)
* Ashland $102,740 (75% to Republicans)
* Marathon Oil $90,600 (84% to Republicans)
* Sunoco $89,500 (85% to Republicans)
* Anadarko $44,500 (96% to Republicans)
* ConocoPhillips $49,500 (88% to Republicans)
* Shell Oil $29,500 (93% to Republicans)
* BP $64,000 (88% to Republicans)

[7 Wishes]

Cumulative Oil & Gas Contributions to Senators
Who Blocked a Measure to Rollback (i.e. eliminate) Oil Company Giveaways
Source: Center for Responsive Politics

SENATOR / OIL & GAS CONTRIBUTIONS over the past 4 years

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $577,556
John Cornyn (R-TX) $561,380
Bob Corker (R-TN) $215,350
Pat Roberts (R-KS) $205,850
James Inhofe (R-OK) $196,700
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $150,500
Pete Domenici (R-NM) $145,950
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) $140,700
Christopher Bond (R-MO) $129,350
Sam Brownback (R-KS) $129,155
Trent Lott (R-MS) $124,300
George Voinovich (R-OH) $122,050
Arlen Specter (R-PA) $119,878
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) $98,300
Jim Bunning (R-KY) $98,269
John Ensign (R-NV) $95,100
David Vitter (R-LA) $81,100
Michael Crapo (R-ID) $63,650
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) $58,800
Robert Bennett (R-UT) $58,700
Thad Cochran (R-MS) $58,500
Richard Shelby (R-AL) $56,800
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $53,400
Ted Stevens (R-AK) $44,700
Michael Enzi (R-WY) $42,500
John Sununu (R-NH) $41,900
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) $41,250
Larry Craig (R-ID) $33,500
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $33,250
Judd Gregg (R-NH) $31,500
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) $29,600
Richard Burr (R-NC) $28,750
John Barrasso (R-WY) $27,500
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) $25,200
Jim DeMint (R-SC) $23,722
Mel Martinez (R-FL) $17,000
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) $16,600
Tom Coburn (R-OK) $9,600
John Warner (R-VA) $9,500
Wayne Allard (R-CO) $0*
Total $4,097,810
*Sen. Allard was last re-elected in 2002 and will be retiring in 2008

If you look closely, there is a token Democrat amongst the 40.