Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling; Big Oil winning?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with you on that point, though I think you exaggerate the magnitude of the effect. We consume huge amounts of petroleum in our chemical industries (in fact an amount equal to our total domestic production of petroleum). Even with a relative shift towards rail, our petroleum consumption in vehicles would be very high. Apart from the coastal regions, our population density just isn't high enough for a European style system. Still that alone would indeed be a major shift. (Interestingly, in 1945 Los Angeles had the most extensive metrorail system in the country. A business group I ran was heavily involved with the design & construction of the new Red line in LA -- all of it was built on the old 1930s rights of way.)

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Gee Okie. I wonder how much land was granted to the "private" railroad companies by the government and how many acres of government ground the "private" oil companies lease for pennyes an acre while they suck $140 a barrel oil from our public land. Like I have been saying big business runs our government with bought politicians and have for almost 100 or more years.

And it helped the railroads open up the country, which benefited all citizens, rabel. And cyclops is now complaining that we do not subsidize rail service more. Which is it? Too much or not enough? Leases were competitively bid, rabel, and many were bid during times of much lower prices. If you think it is a steal, start your own company and bid on the leases to make your millions. After all, the leases are being given away, right?

Ignorance continues to abound. This is the result of a lousy education system.

0 Replies

Pelosi's Fuel Plan: Dip
Into U.S. Crude Reserve

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378241,00.html

Laughing

This is so brilliant, the petroleum reserve is the answer, but producing several times that amount from ANWR or offshore isn't?

Where do these people come from that are elected, that is my question, and where did they go to school?

And what bothers me is the petroleum reserves were created to be used in national emergencies. This is not a national emergency, just a period of time during the ebb and flow of prices, a normal market fluctuation. These people are willing to risk our national security for a few pennies a gallon, for political expediency, to tell the voters they did something, so they can get elected again, when in fact they did nothing except use oil that is intended to be used only in an emergency. PATHETIC!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
George, I would add that the petroleum industry would never, ever have risen to it's current prominence without the creation and maintenance of the Interstate Highway system; and the decision to focus money on the continuation of the current system, rather then build up our rail transportation, as other countries have done. I'm not arguing with this decision, merely pointing out that there are massive amounts of money spent which directly support the continuation of a system which supports oil industry in America.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with you on that point, though I think you exaggerate the magnitude of the effect. We consume huge amounts of petroleum in our chemical industries (in fact an amount equal to our total domestic production of petroleum). Even with a relative shift towards rail, our petroleum consumption in vehicles would be very high. Apart from the coastal regions, our population density just isn't high enough for a European style system. Still that alone would indeed be a major shift. (Interestingly, in 1945 Los Angeles had the most extensive metrorail system in the country. A business group I ran was heavily involved with the design & construction of the new Red line in LA -- all of it was built on the old 1930s rights of way.)

Build rail lines all over the country, at the expense of billions, and it would hardly make a dent in oil consumption, I would bet on that. Cyclops idea of trains solving the energy crisis in this country is a pipe dream.

0 Replies

No it isn't. It must be in concert with other oil saving actions such as a) reduce the speed limits, b) reduce work days from five to four where possible, c) develop public mass transit systems that will reduce the need for more roads, fuel, and cars, and d) continue R&D to find more efficient use of energy.

0 Replies

Partial agreement, but I don't think European style railroads are the answer here. And I don't think reducing work days are the answer, as people may travel more if they aren't at work, I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem all that hot of an idea, and what happens to productivity?

Some of my solutions are:

More efficient vehicles and more efficient usage of vehicles, which is happening right now, due to price of fuel. More tax breaks to encourage more efficiency, both with vehicles and homes.

Mass transit where it makes sense, such as light rail in big cities. I am not high on buses making much difference. They are a convenience for some people, but not much more than that in regard to saving energy.

More R & D, but this is already happening, but perhaps provide more incentive to private enterprise, by using the tax system.

Drill for more oil and gas, improve our production as much as possible, to reduce the amount of sudden price shock. This allows more time for innovation, with less economic upheaval.

Improve the roads that we have, provide faster or shorter routes. Stop and go traffic in big cities is a humongous waste. Building of roads needs to be streamlined with less environmental costs and holdups. The cost of road building and maintenance has increased more than necessary because of all the hoops that have to be jumped through. I don't look for much improvement with streamlining the process, but at least there should be.

Less concentration of business in central locations would alleviate traffic jams. Things need to be spread out and more evenly distributed, which may be a surprise to some people, but I think studies have shown this to be the case, contrary to popular belief.

Bottom line, price will dictate much of the above, as people will take the initiative to make the choices that best balance their particular situations.

I know one thing, producing from the strategic petroleum reserves is not a solution, it is dumb dumb and dumber. But no surprise that Pelosi would come up with it.

0 Replies

I hate to agree with Okie but he is right in this case. Taking oil from our reserves is a short term solution. We need to keep our reserves for emergencies. We have plenty of oil at this time the price is just being minuplated.

0 Replies

okie wrote: Partial agreement, but I don't think European style railroads are the answer here.

Yes it is! One can travel from one city center to almost any city in Europe by rail. Once you arrive in most cities, they have other public transportation to get to where you wish to go. It's not only about building rails; it's in concert with supporting public transportation once you reach there. London, Berlin, Barcelona and Paris are good examples.

0 Replies

Most places I go - I need transportation when I get there, and I haul stuff to and from, and while I am there. Wouldn't work, ci, for me.

I once tried the bus system in a city I worked, to and from work, and I gave up on it, it took too much time, it was smelly, it was a waste of time, it was a fiasco to be honest. It might be okay if you live in a good place for a direct route, otherwise no.

I have also spent time in London, riding the subways and buses, and the whole city seems like a miserable disaster in the making, not my idea of anything very desireable, both in surroundings and lifestyle. You can have it, ci.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Most places I go - I need transportation when I get there, and I haul stuff to and from, and while I am there. Wouldn't work, ci, for me.

I once tried the bus system in a city I worked, to and from work, and I gave up on it, it took too much time, it was smelly, it was a waste of time, it was a fiasco to be honest. It might be okay if you live in a good place for a direct route, otherwise no.

I have also spent time in London, riding the subways and buses, and the whole city seems like a miserable disaster in the making, not my idea of anything very desireable, both in surroundings and lifestyle. You can have it, ci.

You rent a bike or a car by the hour when you arrive at your location, Okie. I can do this at any time in pretty much every major city in America through Zipcar, and the bicycles are coming online pretty quick as well.

You should realize that there are far more Americans living in Urban situations then Rural ones; something like 4 times as many. Your concerns and experiences are not the norm in any way. Systems which will work for the majority of Americans should not be held back by the relative minority whose lifestyle does not match up with the rest of us.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote: Partial agreement, but I don't think European style railroads are the answer here.

Yes it is! One can travel from one city center to almost any city in Europe by rail. Once you arrive in most cities, they have other public transportation to get to where you wish to go. It's not only about building rails; it's in concert with supporting public transportation once you reach there. London, Berlin, Barcelona and Paris are good examples.

Large old European cities are densely populated.

Older American cities on the East coast are also.

They packed thousands of people in per sq mile.

Many newer American cities are spread out geographically. People want green space, and backyards instead of a hallway on the 4th floor.

Mass transit for many American cities is an expensive , inefficient failure and always will be because it fights the reality of population density (or lack of it) in those areas.

Do the math.

Telecommuting is the single easiest and cheapest way to save energy, alleviate traffic overcrowding and the need for more roads.

It requires NO government expenditure, NO laws need to be passed, and results in happier employees who save money on their commute, their clothes, their lunch expense, their daycare , their auto depreciation and a host of other things.

0 Replies

There are indeed fundamental factors that would prevent our creation of European-style transportation and urban land management systems. However, it is also true that important advances can by made through a broad set of changes, ranging from those Cyclo has suggested to the telecommuting idea noted above, and others.

We are a particularly adaptive society and we enjoy relatively undistorted economic feedbact through our relatively freer markets for transportation, energy and other basic processes. That means that, even without the supposed wisdom of government intervention, we will fairly swiftly incorporate advantageous applications of new technologies for transportation, power generation and basic patterns of urban life. I believe we should approach these issues with more self-confidence in the basic flexibility and adaptability of the American economy and people.

0 Replies

Beijing added three new subway systems to theirs to prepare for the olympics. If Beijing can do it, so can most cities in the US.

Athens developed their subway system within the past couple of decades.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Beijing added three new subway systems to theirs to prepare for the olympics. If Beijing can do it, so can most cities in the US.

Athens developed their subway system within the past couple of decades.

And all of them required huge government subsidies. Even with $5.00/gal gasoline you can't run a metrorail system on the revenues from the farebox. We both still pay a surcharge on our property tax to finance BART and the system has long ago fuilly amortized its construction costs. Worse, Marin County (home of Barbara Boxer) and the peninsula still reject any extention of Bart into their domains. Wonder why???

0 Replies

Nothing wrong with government subsidy of public transportation; it'll cut the demand on fuel, it'll reduce toxins into our air, and more people will leave their cars home.

0 Replies

Chicago uses fuel cell busses that does not pollute.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

.............

Athens developed their subway system within the past couple of decades.

Not so, the Athens subway is a century old; they just added new lines for the Olympic venues.

0 Replies

phone rings last night;
"Hello Dys, this is Mark and I have 4 questions I would like to ask you,
1. are you planning to vote for the republican or the democrat for the State Senate?"
Dys says, 'the democrat"
2 "Ok, would you change your vote if you knew the democrat candidate says he will use tax-payer funds to improve public transportation access on the west side?
Dys says "yes and that's one reason why I plan to vote for him"
Mark says" Ok thank you for your imput and have a nice day"

Now on the other hand we have a democrat mayor who says he would like the city to rent a Koala Bear from China @ $1 million per year so as to increase tourism.

I will be voting to improve public transportation and I will not be voting to rent a Koala.

0 Replies

If every person in Denver drove a car or a vehicle that got more than 25 to 30 mpg and drove to work by themselves alone in each vehicle, they would save energy, vs riding a bus there. And the air would probably smell alot better. So instead of spending millions on buses, why not buy everyone a Smart car, bicycle, or motorcycle?

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
.............

Athens developed their subway system within the past couple of decades.

Not so, the Athens subway is a century old; they just added new lines for the Olympic venues.

In 1867, construction of the railway was awarded to the English businessman Edward Pickering, and work began on the 8 km line from Piraeus to Athens, which terminated at what is today Thissio station. The line was, of course, entirely on the surface and was steam-operated. Construction was completed on 17 February 1869, on which day the first test run took place, with the official opening ceremony following ten days later.

The line was electrified in 1904 and finally extended underground (3 km) through the city centre and further to Kifissia in 1957, when it began to operate as a real metro line.

0 Replies

Gas Prices Pump Up Support for Drilling; Big Oil winning?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know