'Ol Max Baucus speaks on gas...

[grizzfan]

I received the same letter in email form from Max and similar Democrat talking points drivel from his fat friend Jon Tester. Get ready for $10 gas folks. That's what the Dems and the Environmentalists want so that we'll conserve! Obama, the Messiah his self, actually stated that he only wished the price hadn't gone up so fast. These people are either idiots, fools or both and if you support and vote for them you only have yourself to blame for the outcome.

[mtboy]

Well put wesley, we all need to make changes. But some will simply can not make changes (truckers and farmers for example). I have of the opinion and I see it all the time, that if you can drive, walk, or use public transportation you should. But that is not always that simple. I agree with the development of alternative fuels such as electric cars. Just not ethanol. FYI if the ethanol plants were not subsidized by the governament the probably would not be running, because they could not make fuel cheaper that current petroleum based plants. Ethanol is a joke and I feel we should be looking into electric power more in depth. Just my opinion.

[Rickers]

Anwar drilling - Good.
RMF drilling - Bad.
E. Mt./N.D. shale drilling - good.
Make friends with Cuba and keep China from tapping OUR oil, Good.
Hydrogen fuel options - good.
Compressed air powered short range cars - good.
corn diversion to fuel - bad.
Living within walking distance to your job - good !
Further development of solar and wind resources - good.
Now please don't get me started on the subject of our nations apathy toward recycling !

[mtboy]

Well put wesley! I think we should all be making changes. But for some it is not that simple (truckers and farmers for example). I am of the opinion that if you can either drive, walk, or use public transportation to get to destination you should. This would greatly reduce the use of fuel in the country. I agree we should use alternative fueled vehicles such as electric cars, and this is were we should focus more research. I just disagree with the use of ethanol. Ethanol is a joke. If ethanol plants were not subsidized by the government then they would not be in operation. If they didn't recieve this government allowance, they would not be in operation because they could not make gasoline cheaper than a refinery. Drilling isn't the long term cure all, yes it would help but not forever. I recently stubled onto a little fact that there has not been any new refineries built since the 70's. Which means no increase in production. Hmmm a little thing called supply and demand comes to mind doesn't it? And, the oil companies are not the only ones to blame. Maybe the ole boys in DC have a little to do with it. It is an easy job when things are running well, but now things aren't and everyone is pointing there finger at the fellow next to him saying he did it. This is push needs to be huge and both sides of the isle need to wake up work together and get something done! Just my opinion.

[mtboy]

For more information type in "Subsidies to Ethanol Plants" on to Google, and the first site that comes up breaks it down tremendously. I know you can't trust everything to read on the internet but this coincides with other information I have seen. I especially like the last section when it discusses oil vs. ethanol subsidies.

[grizzfan]

Wesley81 and mtboy, I believe so-called "alternative fuels" are a long way off. The problem is that we do not have a plan of action or a long-range vision of what we want. Let me give you a start. It's based upon the premise that we are and will be for several decades more an oil-based economy. There just isn't any substitute yet and to avoid further supply to a supply problem is to guarantee higher and higher prices. Our economy cannot take much more negative impact from higher priced fuel.

The plan is broken down in to short, medium and long range phases that are mutually inclusive:

Short Range - 0-10 years. Congress acts immediately to open ANWR & US Coastal areas and tar sands to production of crude. Congress subsidizes non-oil based industry to find an "alternative fuel(s)". Oil companies are capitalized to produce oil, not everything. They can do it but without subsidy. Congress drops subsidies for manufacture of food-based ethanol; requires that it takes less energy and water to produce than corn-based ethanol. Reduces licencing requirements for nuclear reactors and oil refineries. Puts most environmental activists in jail. (A joke - relax!!)

Medium Range - 10-20 years. By producing own oil US reduces imports of crude and gasoline to less than 25%. Wind power makes headway, particularly in Cape Cod where Senator Kennedy had opposed it for decades. US alternative fuel plants producing XXX are being constructed in strategic points across the nation by the Alternative & The Other Stuff Corporations. Infrastructure to deliver XXX is being set up as well. 50 nuclear reactors are up and running vastly reducing the need to burn oil, coal and natural gas to produce electricity.

Long Range- 20-30 years. US becomes net crude exporter. Alternative fuel XXX is in common distribution across the US. Another 100 nuclear reactors are on line. The first 10 nuclear fusion reactors have gone critical.

Now, that's pretty down and dirty and you can argue about the numbers, but it's a plan.

I hear "The Messiah" Obama state that it'll be 10 years before the first drop of oil is produced from new drilling. So? His approach to this issue certainly isn't "change" and it gives me zero "hope". We would have had production from ANWR had Clinton not vetoed it 13 years ago. We have to take a multi-faceted approach to this problem because XXX fuel hasn't even been invented yet! Oil is about all we have. Food-based ethanol has been a disaster for the entire world.

Everybody's upset at the speculators - the new enemy. Speculators and hedgers are absolutely necessary to the commodity markets that include oil, pork bellies, corn and wheat and the people who produce these commodities. They take the monetary risk so a farmer in the future feels safe to plant his soybeans. Their risks, however, are two way. I think they should be required to put up as much cash on their contracts bids as everyone else - minimum 50% instead of the current 5%.

Finally these evil speculators are driven as much by rumor and exciting events and signals as they are by profits. Recall what happens when someone speculates that Israel is planning to attack Iran? One 'exciting event' would be for Congress to get off its butt and dramatically signal to the world that we are going to play in the game of providing energy from our own sources. That would jolt the speculation bubble we are in right now and force spot oil prices down almost immediately. I've listened to people familar with this market who say as much. Congress's inaction, its signal that we'll do nothing but preach about "alternative fuels" contributed to this crisis.

It's time for action.

[jimj]

Grizz, it won't let me rep you or I would. Couldn't have said it better myself! All of these windbags wringing their hands about alternative fuels while we slowly dry up and starve. Your plan makes plenty of sense, we have plenty of oil right here to last us at least 60 years while we can develope other things. I can't believe how ignorant and self centered our state reps are, just tout the party line...

Heck, there's oil up on the north fork road, as much as I'd hate to see it throw a couple of temp wells in and get busy. Hide them in the trees, paint 'em green and brown and most will never know they're there.
Not only would it improve the economy around here that's been killed by the timber industry failure it's support the state and nation for now.

[grizzfan]

Not only would it improve the economy around here that's been killed by the timber industry failure it's support the state and nation for now.

Correct. But I'm certain you didn't mean to say that our timber industry failed all by itself - it had plenty of help from the environmentalist industry, the majority of which is located in Missoula, MT!!!

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by mtboy

For more information type in "Subsidies to Ethanol Plants" on to Google, and the first site that comes up breaks it down tremendously. I know you can't trust everything to read on the internet but this coincides with other information I have seen. I especially like the last section when it discusses oil vs. ethanol subsidies.

Per a biofuels business resource site, "Minnesota to Distribute $1.8 Million in Deficiency Subsidies to Ethanol Plants; Another $53 Million to Be Distributed Over Next Six Years"

In other words, the industry is expected to suck up $55M in taxpayer dollars over the next 7 years, TO COVER ETHANOL INDUSTRY LOSSES. And that's JUST for Minnesota.

And consider that per some estimates, it takes FIVE gallons of fuel to produce FOUR gallons of ethanol, which in turn will only take you as far as 3.5 gallons of regular gas. How is this progress??

[jimj]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

Correct. But I'm certain you didn't mean to say that our timber industry failed all by itself - it had plenty of help from the environmentalist industry, the majority of which is located in Missoula, MT!!!

True! Thanks for the addition. It absolutely didn't fail by anything it did other than cut trees which we all know is a precious living resource to be treasured and never,ever,ever cut or disturbed in any way since those old trees can never be replaced.