Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Is it alright if I come on a thread without your permission fm?

Whose pocket are you in?

Id hate this thread to go away.
However, if comments on McCains apparent lack of participation in most energy votes in the last 2 years mneans anything, Id say that hiw ambition has ovetaken any pragmatism he may have been dealt.

Also, if Carter's energy research policy was so useless, why are the GOPs now attempting to distance themnselves, at least during this election cycle, from appearances of being too anti alternative energy.
Tax incentives for alternative energy are necessary to keep AE on a level playing field with petroleum, which is incentivized up the wazoo.

Tax incentives for alternative energy are pork.

pork?

what? barrels

scratchings?

ribs?

tax incentives cant be pork. Thats like saying rock is fish, or muslims are jews.

I know what pork is and it aint a tax incentive.

I was not a big supporter of McCain in the primaries, thus why McCain voted the way he did in regard to gas drilling, I am not familiar, but I admit McCain has not totally seen the light in regard to energy, but he is beginning to, much better than Obama, who lives in some kind of dream world. Obama thinks it is possible and practical to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern or OPEC oil in 10 years.

McCain has at least picked a vp that seems to understand the practical realities of oil and energy.

Yes, I was a geologist, mostly working in uranium, but also did some mineral work, even looked into tar sands, etc. Essentially retired now. I am especially very familiar with the Grants, NM uranium districts.

Democrat constituents, the tree huggers, essentially killed the expansion of nuclear electrical generation in this country around 30 years ago, so they are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution. Interesting parallel in the financial world, they helped run Fannie Mae, etc. into the ground, and now they claim to be part of the solution.

And farmerman, you seem to have some strange attachment to Jimmy Carter, who was not a very good president, so I find that a bit odd.

Listening to Bob Brinker today, the financial or economy guy, and he had a pretty good commentary on energy. In regard to the Democratic Party, he said it has sold its soul to the environmental hacks, and through obstruction and foot dragging has set back the progress of the one energy source, which is nuclear, that could actually make any substantial difference in the demand for fossil fuels in the energy mix. He made the observation that wind and solar might achieve 10 to 15% of the electrical generation in the future, but given the projected increase in demand, those would do little. I noticed that ocean waves and geothermal did not even merit a comment, because I think they are so infintesimal that they are not even worth mentioning, even though the politicians do. I couldn't help but notice that Obama used geothermal as something that has potential to make a difference.

Now, Brinker, as I listen to him while working in the garage on some saturdays, I notice he is not particularly partisan, he states the situation as it is in regard to reality and points out where each party is wrong or right in regard to the economic facts as he understands them.

I think Brinker was spot on, in regard to nuclear, it is I think the one energy source that could actually make a difference, and McCain has been trumpeting it, Obama has not. Obama has a plan, perhaps a book with a cover title, but nothing in the book.

Brinker also observed that some politicians do not live in reality, and that also in regard to nuclear, the world is laughing at us, we are a bunch of fools. Again, I agree. This is what I have been posting here since I came onto this forum, in regard to energy.

Im not really fond of CArters public policies , but his energy policy was so far advanced of everything weve seen since (that has been mostly NO energy policies and cancellation of other than pure exploitive extraction and import). Even our support of LNG is merely another ploy to require addiction to foreign gas, when our own reserves of gas keep increasing geometrically each year if only wed trust our own tech. If you find fult with Carters energy policies then I suppose youd been living on overrides and , like the post 76 oil glut resulted in shortsightedness, you may have discounted the "peak oil" concept of ole M King..


My experience in oil has been mostly Appalachians, the US Gulf , Nigeria, "jupiter field" and working on retorting for Oxy in the Green River.
Im mostly involved with Ti now ,but had been heavily into Neotant/ microlite and Vanadium sands and Haf in zircon defect lattices (research in rare earth chemistry). I enjoy consulting and the exploration life as opposed to life as an academic or A Survey grunt.

As you recall, Carter was opposed to a Liquid FAst Breeder only and he put that on hold because of technology shortcomings. The death of innovation to energy was entirely a Reagan activity. So the "Dems sold their souls to the tree huggers" is good partisan bullshit but closer observation says otherwise. Observation shows that Reagan had, as a result of a return to cheap fuel, killed the alternative energy or new innovations in Nuclear. (As you damn well know the entire Yucca Mt fiasco was started in Reagans term and had been a make work program for the USGS, consultants, and the state compacts who all jumped on a pork ride to extract good GOP dollars (and later DEM)to develop "state sited" nuke disposal sites.
If research continued apace as Carter envisoned it, we would have today
1more efficient PV cells and a strong solar energy market (without incentives this whole program got sold to the Germans and Japanes-sort of like the Goddard rocket)SO we will probably be buying their technology if we dont rapidly catch up. AT least the 700 B "bank welfare program" has a restored alternative energy incentivization program

By the way, I believe it was Jebb Bush who originally petitioned to cease further exploration off Florida and he was joined by the Gov of S CArolina. SO drilling bans have been a political football all over.
Also, all the drilling for gas in the Appalachian Marine Devonian is proceeding in an environmentally safe fashion in PA(under a DEM gov).

In NY however , which, I understand, is still DEM similar drilling is being permitted in the same Devonian group (with the exception of the NYC water shed which utilizes very deep subterranean aquaducts and existing water supplies need to be protected.
That pesky data keeps getting in the way of a good party shibboleth.

farmer, I worked in uranium, so I remember what killed the industry, it was tree huggers. You can cite an event here, an event there, but the overarching reason was that the environmental crowd, obstructionists, won the public debate and scare tactics leading up to and following Three Mile Island, I don't think that is even debatable.

In regard to drilling, sure, you have people like Jebb Bush cowtowing to the environmental crowd, to earn public approval, but the fact remains that the extreme environmental movement is primarily a Democrat constituency group, much of it driven by anti-capitalism, thats what I believe from watching this stuff since the late 60s. I admit there are anomalies within that political landscape, hey, it was Nixon that created the EPA, and who isn't against clean operations as possible, but obstructing is the primary activity of tree huggers, not cleaning up or balanced with reasonable economic impacts. And I don't know Jebb Bush, if he did that due to personal belief or if it was cowtowing to a certain crowd to make points. If he is like his brother, George, I could believe he isn't consistent from issue to issue, and he may go along with something inconsistent with a conservative philosophy at times, so it doesn't surprise me.

In regard to states, governors and other politicians may be more pragmatic in regard to commerce in their states, moreso than on the national stage, and they aren't always as consistent with their party line in Washington. But in Colorado right now, a Democrat, Bill Ritter, is wreaking havoc with some of his proposals for more stringent regulation of drilling, higher severance taxes, etc, and it threatens to run some operators elsewhere. I think alot of his stuff is born out of naivity about how business actually works, but he may learn, and then he has to walk a tight rope between being sensible and satisfying his extreme supporters that have this idealistic view of the world.

As far as party, I grew up in a Democrat family, farmer, but my work experience has totally jaded me toward that party, not due to partisanship without reason, but due to real life experience of observing the party and its constituency groups for the last 4 decades or more. Platforms are real and they are different between the parties, no getting around it. And I still can't figure out the devotion to Carter, even after all your explanations. He evidently was almost a kook, or at least very naive in regard to the realities of the world, based upon his more recent actions, and I thought he was almost normal when he was president albeit not a very good president. The fact of the matter is that government is not the only entity that can research and develop solar and wind, etc. I believe it will do just fine without Carter's government programs.

we agree that govt can only create an environmnet for innovation. What happened after Carter was that the environment was changed for the worst. When ALL incentives are allowed to elapse and the favored energy source, fossil, are incentized as the ONLY energy source, then we part company over this vast chasm of logic. I cant see the logic of Reagans removal of energy incentives. Was he reacting in such a shortsided manner because he was (as had been suggested by DAvid STockman) heavily influenced by fossil fuel interests.

I agree that nuclear energy can be made that is safe and plentiful, and we have plenty of fule ourselves (Witness the USGS inventories0weve barely touched our own sourcesand with fast breeders we can keep producing fuel ). However, evidence shows that THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY has been pretty much shut down since 1982 and is still reeling.

I dont believe that environmental care is a "whacko" thing. Thats a cheap(and error filled) blast from Limbaugh (who Ive never been guilty of seeking scientific information from). Energy innovation and Care for the environment needs to stop being so fuckin politicized to the extent taht there is a feeze up on most all innovative research. We need to develop an attitude that recognizes the future energy needs are gonna be proportional to our growth and strive to meet that.

Maybe with a stronger DEM plurality in Congress, we can send some of these innovation proposals through without a tiresome political standoff that has been the standard of Congress for the last 20 years or so. Congress has been tooclosely split so that clear majorities have troubles being voted up and, as is the present case, when the president vetoes the Dem proposals there is never a strong majority to veto proof the bill.

You need to tell the obstructionists, farmerman, the extreme environmental organizations, that masquerade as caring about the environment, when in fact they are anti-capitalists. Not most citizens, but the organizations that havc pushed the whole agenda, from cartoons on tv, earth day, and all the rest of the bilge pushed off as serious science, when it isn't.

Case in point, drilling for oil. Its becoming very difficult to even operate, and impossible in some areas, when the impacts are more than manageable. People are worried about oil spills, when in fact half the country is paved with asphalt, and you should know it, natural oil seeps and oil deposits occur in many many areas. Just take a look at how much oil is seeping off of the California coast in some places.

To clarify, I do not believe that many environmentalists are seriously interested in honest dialogue, thus it is politicized, we can't help it, it just is. The reason is because their true objective is not to see the work done in a safe fashion, but to stop the activity, while pretending the motive is for safe conduct of the activity. Honesty is not to be expected out of the extreme environmentalists. I came to that conclusion a very long time ago.

I believe communists, marxists, socialists, big government types, all find the environmental movement to be a convenient vehicle to take them where they want to go. I believe this is another motivating factor behind the global warming can of worms. Again, honesty is not one of their virtues.

That's a very strange statement. The most anti-environmental governments exist in countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. These countries are in no hurry to give up their use of coal and oil. Russia has been made more powerful by the recent rise in fossil fuel prices. Why would any of these countries welcome an environmental movement? Why would the environmental movement encourage their forms of government? America has to kowtow to countries like Saudi Arabia because we can't get off the oil tit. As an environmentalist, I want to see America running on clean sustainable energy that we don't have to go to war for. Is that so bad? I want the oil companies, that are sucking the life and money out of us, to be the ones to curl up and die - not our form of government or the entire earth.

Really Okie, I think I know a lot more environmentalists than you and I can tell you they tend to be middle class or lower middle class and are impassioned by the beauty of the earth and not some need to make everyone a "commie". My husband (an environmentalist with papers) was once offered a job that paid almost $200,000. If would require he lie about what a certain large electric company was doing to pollute the environment. He turned it down and today we live on about $35,000 per year doing a job that is beneficial to the earth. We also have an electric bill that only adds up to about $28 dollars a month because of the alternative energy systems we put onto our house and business. Go ahead and keep thinking the way you do, Okie - Exxon, Shell, Sunoco, etc. are laughing at you (and others like you) all the way to their record profits.

You sound like gungasnake here. In reality the runnup on ethanol, the lack of reseasrch into renewables, and the killing of the first generation hybrid cars was ALL the responsibility of industry and not any environmental groups. The environmental groups have always been at the forefront of demandingalternative research.

Carter certainly had a better take on America's energy future than Reagan. Reagan apparently had no understanding of how to make America energy independent.

Again, to set the record straight, enviromentalists are obstructionists, and I am surprised that you, as a person working in industry, cannot see that simple fact. I worked with people involved in minerals, coal, oil & gas, geothermal, etc., and I can tell you the problem of environmentalism far exceeds that of simple concern for the environment, and most everyone I have been around in the industry in past years understands that clearly. Environmentalists are the butt of jokes, and rightfully so.

Energy industry is in the business to make a profit, which is a worthwhile endeavor, because profit generally indicates a higher efficiency than competing energy sources. You can complain about the lack of more efficient cars, etc., but you are dealing with a market here, and there is no denial that the last price rise stimulated alot of activity toward alternatives, etc. Smaller cars were flying off the shelves, while SUVs were sitting in lots. The market is a very powerful thing, do not underestimate it, but nobody is going to build cars that they can't sell when gasoline prices are still relatively low, unless you find it enjoyable to waste money for the sake of wasting it.

Environmental groups demand alot of things, but they are seriously out of step with real economic conditions, and you will always end up with unintended consequences as a result. Nuclear is a prime example. Blame environmentalists for the fact that we in this country could be alot more energy self sufficient if nuclear had not been opposed so viciously by them. And in regard to the greenhouse gas issue, if you feel that is all important, we would be better off right now.

And ethanol is another issue that came about because of artificial manipulation of the market, and if it is true that ethanol takes as much energy or possibly more to produce than it provides when burned, I fail to see the advantage of doing it. Its like throwing money down a well, so that some of it can be fished back out.

But most importantly, fm, I am surprised that you do not see the alliances between environmental extremists and anti-capitalists. The environmental extremists do not really care a whit about the environment, in my opinion. It is more about political power than anything else, and the environment simply is being used as a wedge to leverage what power they think can be gained.

Its interesting how we see the same phenom from different perspectives. Environmentslism has spurred the rise in alternatives . The "incentives" that were placed on aletrnatives were not removed by environmentalist "commies".They were removed by the good ole capital loving Ronnie Reagan.
Im not going to feign incredulity over your "mis" read of recent history.
Its a simple fact that Youve misread ethanol(industry was the ONLY ones supporting ethanol even though they knew it was an energy negative concept), and youve misread development of hybrid and other cars. (The simple fact was that an industry had developed "new generation hybrids" under a sincere effort by the President and working together with the new Newt Gingrih Congress, to spur their development . This was in the mid 1990"s on an understanding that the (Then) cheap oil, woiuld not last forever. With billions of dollars of "seed money" from the TreasuryEach of the "big three" developed really innovative cars with technology that presaged stuff that were only now trying to catch up with. These new gen hybrids were developed and rolled out, Then, when GW came into office, the removal of initial incentives (again) caused the "big three" to trash their concept cars and just go back to making Subdivision sized SUVs and gas inneficient pickups. Meanwhile, the JApanes and Koreans began the rollout of the first hybrids.(the rest is simple recent history. IF ENVIRONMENTALISM had caused the US auto industry to trash these concept cars, why then, did the Japanese, Germans, and Koreans decide to relocate their US divisons to plants INSIDE the US? My company did some of the geotechnical and water resource permitting of the BMW plant in SC and it was a classic partnership arrangement in which economics played THE central role (Environmental design and conservation is NOW, a very big and mature business)
We actually had the market potential by the ass and then destroyed the concept cars. That is the boneheaded thinking that has typified DEetroit centered car mafrs. Almost an arrogant hubris that is now coming home to roost. The simple fact is that Detroit cannot bring decent products to the market in timely fashions. Please dont blame "environmentalism" , becuase youd be all wet.

Lets look at LNG, instead of supporting our own homegrown gas development, we are supporting on shore foreign source gas programs. We are ransoming some energy future by LNG investment. Meanwhile, drilling for gas ,(in the NE) has quietly gone on in Democrat run states like NY and PA. The "environmentalists" have , on the most prt, been supportive of the dreilling with the pledges by the gas companies to initiate water protection and to minimize earth disturbance by a "10%" grid rule (Since the advent of better slant drilling, the methodology for recovery has been techy driven). eing somewhat familiar with the PA plays, Im surprised how much accord is actually present. Since most of the land is in state gamelands hands, the drilling has been given close oversight with no serious glitches and no protesters.

You sound like someone hose been bitten by the Rush Limbaugh buig. So I just will back off cause I know that theres usually little data that I know you will accept. WHenever a program works, Im always fed the line that the environmentalists had NOT been involved and thats BS, totally and symmetrically (as Mark Twain would have said).

I guess we can agree to disagree . When PMing becomes available Ill send you some propoganda on the state geologists associations in the East Coast, you may be surprised at what a"haggard bunch " of pragmatic environmentalists we are on the coasts.

Sometimes truth, even though staring us in the face, can be talked away by reliance on political myth. Youve rounded up some of the ACTUAL truths about the death of incentives for alternative energy. Most industries have a "quarter to quarter" strategic horizon. To actually trash entire programs because energy prices plummeted was clearly dumb headed (a Condition that we are suffering even today). The results in the renewables market (Using solar industry as an example), has allowed the Germans and Japanese to lead the industry in technology. As Solar energy reaches parity with (heavily subsidized fossil and nuclear) it will become the energy source of choice in but a few years. NOW that the enrgy incentives have been restored by "The Bailout" , we can expect the US companies to try to play catchup.

In ALLLLL efforst of large scope, the Conservatives had better understand tne truth that the US Govt has ALWAYS had an active role. Industry has, as clearly demonstrated in sveral occasions, that they are unable to "affect any market leadership" in just about anything if left to their own devices.

Good post and great clip.

CArter has been demonized by the right. YEt, as history is showing, he was the lone voice for energy planning in the rising conservative wilderness of the late 1970s (not to mention that he was a competent nuclear engineer). He was right, he was cheated of a legacy by a bunch of cretins who dont have the IQ of an ice cube. CArtyer was more a result of bad press than actual events.(He inherited the Nixon and Ford economic debacles, he was cuttoff at the pass by the risingReagan ARmy , and he did make a dumb (albeit brave) move to mount a military operation using incompetent(and a decade long demoralized) military leadership.

Im playing catch up with yoer posts GW, You nailed an amzing point to which I never considered. AS the Right wing tries to distill environmentalism as equivalent to communism, we can see that the REAL communist nations left standing, are pretty much environmetal wastelands.

I reject totally and completely that industry, if left to its own devices, will solve all our environmental problems. I once had some of my econ geology students do a "Winterim" roject on the history of energy development in our history. It ws surprising how, during the "gilded Age" industry (being left to its own devises) had severely trashed several states. (Including several thousand miles of dead rivers in the 84000 total miles of rivers inthe Commonwealth of Pa)

fm, thanks for the reasoned reply. I guess our experiences have been different. I will try to address some of your points.

Talking about ethanol, sure, business wants to make a profit, and if the government will grant huge tax breaks to the ethanol industry, the corn growers are happy to oblige. And I would point out that other businesses, so called green businesses, also love to make money, so that if huge tax incentives or "seed money" are given to produce hybrid or electric cars, the companies will do it if they can make a buck. And so will the wind and solar industries do the same. I think that is what Pickens is angling for, no doubt. There are so-called environmentalists that are capitalists.

As to which industries the government should encourage, I stand by my assertion that anytime you artificially prop up an industry or oppose an industry based upon erroneous assumptions, you get unintended consequences. Ethanol is a prime example. Nuclear is a huge reverse example, wherein we would no doubt be far better off now than we are if the environmentalists had not killed the industry here in the U.S.

You can argue hybrid cars, but I believe the recent price rise did far more to spur change in peoples buying habits than any stimulation of a technology by government. With or without Bush, hybrids are out there, in the market, witness all the Priuses on the road. I have ridden in one, a relative has one, it is basically a very very small car that most people do not want until gasoline prices go up as they did recently. As an aside, I fail to see why we are not marketing some of the small car models that are sold in Europe, such as the 3 cylinder deisel Volkswagon Lupo, here in this country, that can exceed the economy of the Prius. I think the answer, again a phony intrusion into the market, is apparently due to crash standards or possibly emission standards, I am not honestly sure, so that Volkswagon does not market the car here in the U.S.

All of this leads into a point I want to make. The market forces themselves, government incentives aside, is a far more powerful force to energy alternatives and innovation than anything the government can do. Perhaps the government can spur some development in a new direction, but as I have already explained, such a direction could have unintended consequences, perhaps the entire direction is the wrong direction, because the market has not proven the validity of the direction being taken. I do happen to agree with some tax incentives being given, but I do not think they should completely override the market as it develops.

But still bottom line, environmentalists are obstructionists, I have experienced it and I have seen it first hand. Besides the nuclear industry, I can cite another small example, but one that happens in lots of ways in lots of places. It is no longer happening there now, but for years, Wichita trucked their trash more than 100 miles into Oklahoma every day, with multiple semis pounding the highways every single day, multiple trips, hauling garbage, for what reason, the reason being environmentalists obstructed the reasonable location of a landfill near Wichita. Untold hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel, perhaps millions of gallons, and I also know of at least one traffic death, and lots of road wear, simply because of a bunch of tree huggers.

How many mines, how many oil fields, how many dams, how many timber cutting projects, how many of lots of things have been delayed, obstructed, and shut down, simply because of tree huggers. Instead, we now transport alot more products, minerals, and energy from foreign sources, all a very wasteful and counterproductive way to do things. You will never convince me that hauling oil from somewhere else is more efficient than piping it from Alaska, just one of numerous examples. And enviromental extremists are one reason why our economy is right now on a slippery slope, there is no doubt in my mind.