Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;452452]Off shore drilling voted down today on a party line vote. We better get out there before the Cubans and Chinese.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html"]FOXNews.com - House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum[/URL][/quote]

Huh? Cubans and Chines drilling [B]U.S. Waters[/B]? Surely they can't just [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Internationalwaters.png"]waltz in and setup shop[/URL].

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=saden1;452459]Huh? Cubans and Chines drilling [B]U.S. Waters[/B]? Surely they can't just [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Internationalwaters.png"]waltz in and setup shop[/URL].[/quote]
The international standard for a country's own waters is 12 nautical miles offshore. We (the U.S.) have invoked a Contiguous Zone out to 24 nuatical miles. There is also an Exclusive economic zone which extends out 200 nautical miles, [B]unless the limit overlaps with another country[/B].

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters"]Territorial waters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

The drilling in the proposed legislation was between 50-200mi offshore. I don't know if the areas proposed were actually in conflict with the Cuban initiatives (they probably weren't). However, approving offshore drilling initiatives is the first step in addressing the problem of the Cuban government selling their oil drilling rights off the NW shore (within 50 miles of Key West) to the Chinese and other countries. Repealing the embargo on Cuba is the second step. Considering the current world energy situation, the potential for environmental damage created by the Chinese, and the potential for greater Chinese influence in the region this is a strategic position we should take IMO (keep your friends close and your enemies closer).

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196891,00.html"]FOXNews.com - U.S. Concerned By Cuban Oil Drilling Off Coast - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum[/URL]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;452452]Off shore drilling voted down today on a party line vote. We better get out there before the Cubans and Chinese.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365627,00.html"]FOXNews.com - House Subcommittee Rejects Plan to Open U.S. Waters to More Oil Exploration - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum[/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE]
the U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf, the area affected by the ban.
[/QUOTE]
Why do the democrats vote down drilling. We have so much oil to drill for here, but for some reason we are not allowed to do it. That is the only way we are going to lower gas prices and not have to depend on the Middle East for our energy. The economy would be so much better if those retards in congress would let us drill. Gas prices are definitely one thing people can't blame George Bush for because he actually wants to drill.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=steveo395;452475]Why do the democrats vote down drilling. We have so much oil to drill for here, but for some reason we are not allowed to do it. That is the only way we are going to lower gas prices and not have to depend on the Middle East for our energy. The economy would be so much better if those retards in congress would let us drill. Gas prices are definitely one thing people can't blame George Bush for because he actually wants to drill.[/QUOTE]

Now can't kill a fish or a bird. That would just be inhumane, but we can stick it to the people. I am still waiting for the cheap oil that people were saying why we went to war with Iraq.

Re: F... gas prices
 

I don't this may be far fetched but you would think that it is all most unconstitutional with the oil prices this his and they are not doing anything about it. What ever happened to the phrase "for the people by the people?" I would just like to hear a good reason why they voted it down. I did not hear the liberal media mention this vote down.

Re: F... gas prices
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — For a quarter-century, drilling for oil and gas off nearly all the American coastline has been banned in part to protect tourism and to lessen the chances of beach-blackening spills.

link: [url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5juoNspsulD1ZE8LPtWQI_6JtIVqwD91CFEF00]The Associated Press: Bush looks offshore for remedy to high oil prices[/url]

Re: F... gas prices
 

first flip flop of this election. McCain now wants to drill, after being opposed to it

Re: F... gas prices
 

Here is what caught my eye in that article:
[quote]The 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department. The country each year uses about 7.6 billion barrels of oil and 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.[/quote]
So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;453335]first flip flop of this election. McCain now wants to drill, after being opposed to it[/QUOTE]
He wants to drill here, but still doesn't want to touch ANWR, where I believe there is much more oil and natural gas than in these coastal areas.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;453336]Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.[/quote]

Totally,
Look to the long term. have we not done enough poor planning?

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;453336]Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.[/quote]

Yep, hardly a viable long term solution.

We need to shake our addiction to oil... period.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;453335]first flip flop of this election. McCain now wants to drill, after being opposed to it[/QUOTE]

Wait, I thought that "flip flop" was a phrase that only the GOP used. When Kerry was accused of flip-flopping on Iraq, Dems responded that he was merely reacting to changing conditions and that is a sign of intelligence.

IMO, we need to differentiate between flip-flopping for purely political reasons and changing policies to account for an ever-changing world. If you think McCain flip-flopped for purely political purposes, what political advantage did he gain? He certainly lost some votes from the slightly left of center independents and he didn't gain any votes from most Repubs who would never vote for Obama. McCain can say with a straight face that he changed his opinion after the new gas crisis struck.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;453336]Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.[/quote]
Its not like this will be our only source of oil for 28 months straight. That wouldn't even be possible. This would just add to oil that we are already producing, and more places that we should start drilling, plus oil that we're already getting from Canada. We can tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuala to go screw themselves and we'd be getting all of our oil from North America.

I agree that we need to develop alternate sources, but it will take time and we need more oil now.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;453336]Here is what caught my eye in that article:

So drilling into these areas will provide oil for roughly 28 months, and natural gas for 44 months...5-10 years down the road. That's a small band-aid on a crater-sized hole.

Quite honestly, I'd rather Congress push Big Oil into further developing alternative sources than drill these areas.[/quote]

Iffy analysis.

As Steveo said, this will not be the sole source of US oil, far from it. If the US were to use oil from these areas exclusively, then it would last the amount of time you mentioned.

But we will not draw from this source at such a fast rate. We will still import oil from OPEC, from other nations, and continue to draw from current US sources. This offshore source will supplement the existing supply of oil in our country, thereby increasing supply, helping to push the price of gas down over the course of 20+ years.

The affect on our economy will not be a drop in the bucket, it will not be a short-lived (2-3 year) benefit, but it is also not a long term, permanent solution. We need to continue pushing for alternative energy sources while at the same time tapping into these reserves.

Re: F... gas prices
 

Point for debate here:

[QUOTE]"Bottom line, you can not drill yourself to lower gas prices," he noted. "The amount of lands that are open, the amount of permits that have been issued have all increased over recent years yet so has the price of gas. There is no correlation between opening up more pristine areas and lowering the price of gas - no correlation whatsoever."
[/QUOTE]

link: [url=http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-18-voa40.cfm]VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling[/url]

Re: F... gas prices
 

I think high energy prices are going to force the next president's hand, whoever it may be, to drill for whatever they can.

And this is why the election process is meaningless. Millions of votes will go one way or the other on this issue alone -- and when it comes down to it, the situation is going to force one or both candidates to abandon the platform they ran on.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Mattyk72;453416]Point for debate here:



link: [URL="http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-18-voa40.cfm"]VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling[/URL][/quote]

Just because recent permits have been increased, and land is available for exploration, does not mean that Oil companies have chosen to drill (in many cases they haven't because the oil reserves aren't large enough for them to cover costs).

In the offshore areas where the reserves are gigantic, the potential for profit is much greater.

Furthermore, any permits for drilling that have been issued within the last few years would not lead to oil production for several more years. This is a ridiculous assessment, it's akin to grading Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly solely on their first 8 OTA practices. You have to give the drilling and refining process time (it takes YEARS) before you start seeing an affect on gas prices.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Mattyk72;453416]Point for debate here:
[quote]"Bottom line, you can not drill yourself to lower gas prices," he noted. "The amount of lands that are open, the amount of permits that have been issued have all increased over recent years yet so has the price of gas. There is no correlation between opening up more pristine areas and lowering the price of gas - no correlation whatsoever."[/quote]
link: [URL="http://voanews.com/english/2008-06-18-voa40.cfm"]VOA News - Bush Calls for End to Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling[/URL][/quote]
In the short-term, that doesn't sound right to me, unless the long-term outlook overwhelms the short-term economics.

I found this quote interesting:
[quote]House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emmanuel says oil companies already hold leases to 68 million acres of federal land that they are not exploring.[/quote]Sounds like the oil companies want to pass the buck onto the American people so that they don't have to do expensive testing to find more oil. I have little sympathy that they have to pump some of their record profits back into their business to find new oil.

Re: F... gas prices
 

Get used to it folks -- even if we drill, oil is only going to rise in price. It's supply and demand -- exactly what our capitalistic system is based of off. We've been stealing oil for years and made no attempts to find a renewable resource to use for energy. We squarely shot ourselves in the foot. India and China won't be looking for any less oil, and I doubt we'll touch the ANWR, which is where most of the domestic oil would be found.

We already drill in Alaska, but it's controlled and not in a national park. I've heard the argument "The people in Alaska are for it." Why wouldn't they be? They already don't pay taxes (the state picks up the tab) plus they get an 'oil check' once a year with the left over profits.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=onlydarksets;453420]In the short-term, that doesn't sound right to me, unless the long-term outlook overwhelms the short-term economics.

I found this quote interesting:
[B]Sounds like the oil companies want to pass the buck onto the American people so that they don't have to do expensive testing to find more oil. I have little sympathy that they have to pump some of their record profits back into their business to find new oil[/B].[/quote]

This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

Can you explain how the American people, as a whole, benefit if Exxon loses $100 million of shareholder value on an exploration like this? Americans get a minimal added benefit in the form of increased oil supplies; mostly American shareholders of Exxon experience a $100 million loss in stock value. The loss in stock value negates the gain on oil prices.

People forget that big business comes back to help the general public.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=steveo395;453412]Its not like this will be our only source of oil for 28 months straight. That wouldn't even be possible. This would just add to oil that we are already producing, and more places that we should start drilling, plus oil that we're already getting from Canada. We can tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuala to go screw themselves and we'd be getting all of our oil from North America.

I agree that we need to develop alternate sources, [B]but it will take time[/B] and we need more oil now.[/quote]
this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Schneed10;453423]This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

[B]They're not passing the buck to anybody[/B]. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.[/quote]
this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;453425]this issue should have been addressed as far back as the 70's. how much more time do they need?the answer is not more oil, its an alternative[/quote]

So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;453426]this isn't exactly true. those large corporate tax breaks that most of the big players enjoy are mostly for research and development. so mainly, you and i are paying for the drilling[/quote]

But it's not that simple. First, we get a benefit in the form of lower gas prices to help offset the tax issue. Secondly, if the government reduces expenditures while giving those tax breaks, then the buck isn't passed. I recognize Bush has bloated spending excessively, which I certainly don't condone. But you can't look at a tax break and directly link it to the public "picking up the tab" because it assumes all else remains constant in a vacuum.

Re: F... gas prices
 

You're worried about $100 million in shareholder value measured up against properly incentivizing oil companies to develop alternative fuels? That's disappointing.

What happens after they exhaust this supply? They have to explore the 68 million acres anyway, because they are going to do the same thing they've done for decades past, which is to ignore the fact that oil is not a renewable resource. The oil companies want the quick fix (which I understand). I also don't begrudge them their record profits (I've stated in the past that this is our fault, as consumers, for paying increasing prices instead of demanding they develop alternatives).

However, giving the oil companies another free pass does not help the consumers in the long run. The current path is simply not a sustainable position.



[quote=Schneed10;453423]This makes so little sense, it boggles my mind.

If it costs $1.0 billion to explore, test, and drill in an area considered relatively small by oil exploration standards, only to generate $0.9 billion in expected oil revenues, why the hell would any company want to do that?

They're not passing the buck to anybody. They're not asking that someone else test it and explore it. They're simply passing on the opportunity because the payoff isn't there.

Can you explain how the American people, as a whole, benefit if Exxon loses $100 million of shareholder value on an exploration like this? Americans get a minimal added benefit in the form of increased oil supplies; mostly American shareholders of Exxon experience a $100 million loss in stock value. The loss in stock value negates the gain on oil prices.

People forget that big business comes back to help the general public.[/quote]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Schneed10;453427]So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:[/quote]
all im saying is that this isn't a single party issue. if congress wants to be taken seriously, let them explain what they have been doing the last couple of decades to try and alleviate our dependency on oil. because most of those guys are career politicians

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Schneed10;453427]So because we should have addressed DE five years ago in the draft, we shouldn't address it now?

Don't we still have the need?

:doh:[/quote]
Not if it means bringing in Jason Taylor at the expense of a first round pick. Your faith in big oil is frighteningly naive.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Schneed10;453429][B]But it's not that simple[/B]. First, we get a benefit in the form of lower gas prices to help offset the tax issue. Secondly, if the government reduces expenditures while giving those tax breaks, then the buck isn't passed. I recognize Bush has bloated spending excessively, which I certainly don't condone. But you can't look at a tax break and directly link it to the public "picking up the tab" because it assumes all else remains constant in a vacuum.[/quote]
oh contraire, mon fraire. those oil companies are specifically told those breaks are under the conditions of re investing in further research and development. and we all know our gov't would never lie to us, would they? or are the lunatics running the asylum again?

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;453437]oh contraire, mon fraire. those oil companies are specifically told those breaks are under the conditions of re investing in further research and development. and we all know our gov't would never lie to us, would they? or are the lunatics running the asylum again?[/quote]

You're missing the point. I'm talking about how the federal government sets their SPENDING budget.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;453435]all im saying is that this isn't a single party issue. if congress wants to be taken seriously, let them explain what they have been doing the last couple of decades to try and alleviate our dependency on oil. because most of those guys are career politicians[/quote]
I want to be clear on that, too - I put this squarely on the office holders of the past 35 years (1973 should have been a call to action, even though it was an artificial market constraint), which includes a mostly Democrat congress (but not by much) and a pretty even split of Democrat and Republican presidents.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;453435]all im saying is that this isn't a single party issue. if congress wants to be taken seriously, let them explain what they have been doing the last couple of decades to try and alleviate our dependency on oil. because most of those guys are career politicians[/QUOTE]

Let's not blame this oil crisis on the government. What are they supposed to do, outlaw gasoline or order everyone and every company who owns a car to turn in their keys? As you noted, they've been doling out money for years in the search for alternative fuels. Contrary to popular belief, the government is not and never will be an omniscient and omnipotent body that can solve every problem presented to society. So, I don't think the government should be blasted every time something bad happens.

Moreover, private companies have expended millions upon millions (and perhaps billions) of dollars in the search for cheap, efficient, and green fuels that are compatible with our cars, trucks, etc. To date, no one has discovered a good alternative.

The only thing that is going to force this country to kick its oil addiction is money. As gas becomes more and more expensive, the pressure to find alternative energy sources grows and grows. When someone else develops a cheaper source of energy that is compatible with our engines, they're going to become trillionaires and society will be able to kick gas to the curb.

Re: F... gas prices
 

The government regulates utilities, why not gasoline? Once the automobile became an integral part of the American economy, I think the government had a responsibility to oversee that it's future was secure.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that there are no good alternatives to gasoline. The oil lobby (and, through it, the automobile lobby) has had a vested interest in riding this out as long as possible. The government decided to take a passive role and not set any timetables (like they did for broadcasters and HDTV). Evolutionary change is painful, but it's usually in the best interest of the future.

I will add that we are equally to blame by not demanding alternatives through the market. However, the alternatives have generally been beyond the financial reach of 95%+ of the households out there.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;453450]The government regulates utilities, why not gasoline? Once the automobile became an integral part of the American economy, I think the government had a responsibility to oversee that it's future was secure.[/QUOTE]

I never claimed the government should not or does not regulate gasoline. The government undoubtedly regulates gasoline, both directly and indirectly. Those little stickers on the gas pumps are mandated by the government. The government taxes gasoline. Gas station owners are subject to a whole host of regulations. The government also indirectly regulates gasoline by subjecting oil explorers, producers, refiners, etc. to heavy regulation. The government regulates fuel efficiency standards in cars. I am just unclear as to how the government can regulate gas in a way that solves the problem that we are currently experiencing.

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;453450]I think you are fooling yourself if you think that there are no good alternatives to gasoline. The oil lobby (and, through it, the automobile lobby) has had a vested interest in riding this out as long as possible. The government decided to take a passive role and not set any timetables (like they did for broadcasters and HDTV). Evolutionary change is painful, but it's usually in the best interest of the future.[/QUOTE]

Please name a single realistic alternative to gasoline. Just as the oil lobby "has a vested interest in riding this out," other large multi-billion dollar companies would stand to make trillions upon trillions if they could readily develop a cheap, efficient, and green alternative. So, I don't quite understand why people cite oil company conspiracy theories as the real reason why we haven't found an alternative to gas, when there are trillions of reasons why existing powerful companies have been, are, and will be exploring alternatives.

Re: F... gas prices
 

this guy has the answer,our problems are solved,hes made gas out of water
[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FW_LQqJk740&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FW_LQqJk740&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;453456]I never claimed the government should not or does not regulate gasoline. The government undoubtedly regulates gasoline, both directly and indirectly. Those little stickers on the gas pumps are mandated by the government. The government taxes gasoline. Gas station owners are subject to a whole host of regulations. The government also indirectly regulates gasoline by subjecting oil explorers, producers, refiners, etc. to heavy regulation. The government regulates fuel efficiency standards in cars. I am just unclear as to how the government can regulate gas in a way that solves the problem that we are currently experiencing.

[B]Please name a single realistic alternative to gasoline. [/B]Just as the oil lobby "has a vested interest in riding this out," other large multi-billion dollar companies would stand to make trillions upon trillions if they could readily develop a cheap, efficient, and green alternative. So, I don't quite understand why people cite oil company conspiracy theories as the real reason why we haven't found an alternative to gas, when there are trillions of reasons why existing powerful companies have been, are, and will be exploring alternatives.[/quote]
My wording was poor in my previous post. I'm not saying the alternatives exist in a viable form. I meant that there is no reason they should [U]not[/U] exist, if the proper motivations were there over the past 35 years. That's the regulation that the government failed to provide - incentives to develop alternative fuels that actually motivate.

The past 10 years have proved beyond a doubt that America is absolutely and irrevocably dependent on oil. What other resource would we stand for a quadruple increase in price in such a short period? It is the government's responsibility to ensure scarcity isn't a problem for a resource that the government depends on to that extent.

It's also not as simple as some random company inventing a new engine and making trillions. The investment required to create an alternate fuel is a barrier to entry to almost every company out there. It would take a huge chunk out of even big oil. It's not just inventing a car that runs on corn, it's creating the infrastructure to allow people to get their corn refills (or whatever).

In the end, though, we are where we are, and that can't be changed. The government shouldn't get a free pass for not addressing the issue earlier, though.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[url=http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51]Amory Lovins on winning the oil endgame | Video on TED.com[/url]

This guy has a great take on the issue and actually presents an argument of hope. I lvoe this site it has some great stuff.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;453471]It's also not as simple as some random company inventing a new engine and making trillions.[/QUOTE]

It could be just that simple. Read [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066"]this[/URL] very interesting Newsweek article. I don't believe the process will be quick, cheap or easy, but with trillions of dollars to be made, the incentive and investment dollars are there.

Also, I'm not sure what role the government should play in this mess. Remember, our government is the one that tried to kill Castro with exploding cigars, couldn't deliver drinking water to Katrina victims, and pays $500 for toilet seats. What makes people optimistic that they can solve a problem that greedy multi-billion dollar companies can't?

Re: F... gas prices
 

Good news everybody...Shell, Exxon Mobile, Total, Chevron and BP are final stages of negotiating a [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"]no-bid contract[/URL] with the Iraqi Oil Ministry. We're in for some treats.

Re: F... gas prices
 

but saden, its NOT about the oil. and sheriff, im not blaming the oil crisis on the gov't. but these guys are supposed to be the genius's they claim to be, they should have been looking at alternatives as far back as the 70's. its funny how all of a sudden its a big issue, to everyone.

Re: F... gas prices
 

[quote=dmek25;453494]but saden, its NOT about the oil. and sheriff, im not blaming the oil crisis on the gov't. but these guys are supposed to be the genius's they claim to be, they should have been looking at alternatives as far back as the 70's. its funny how all of a sudden its a big issue, to everyone.[/quote]
The problem has been that gas has been cheap so alternatives to gas have been to expensive. Why would we spend more for a car that burns on alternative fuels when we could buy the cheaper car which burns cheap gas. Now that gas has gone up like it has it makes alternative fuels more affordable. Even though oil co. sell oil if they could have found a cheaper alternative to oil they would have done so but gas was to cheap to compete with. Think about this. Would you invest in a Co. that says its looking for an alternative to gas but it will be more expensive and very hard to market? No. So while they have done research there was just not enough demand until the past year or so. I say we drill here at home but we force the Oils Co. drilling here to spend a certain percentage of profits on research. This will buy us some time and help control gas prices. This country has become what it is because we have been a leader in inventing new things (I don't really need to list them we all know). So I'm confident someone or some co. will find a solution to this problem and if they make millions or billions good for them.