Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1665794)

Jon--dude may be right, but, the damage to the environment is so destructive that it would NOT be worth to drill this oil up. Yes, $4 a gallon. Should we be leaving a Carbon footprint that large when something other fuel source is on the cusp of discovery? I would rather make it "Mother Necessity of Invention"--and guess what, to be competitive, I think the US brain power is intelligent enough to make it a necessity to change how we all, globally use fuel...

Not saying dude is wrong, but I disagree with his tactic. I don't want any more platforms off California's coast... And you definitely won't get them off Washington state's coast--too many Greenpeace/ELF lunatics...

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1666039)

But see......a lot of it isn't. Natural gas, for example, is a clean burning energy and you don't have to completely destroy the environment to get it. The amount of regulatory measures and environmental checks required to even begin drilling a well are incredibly high. Where you used to have to drill a new well every time you wanted to explore in a new location, I can drill one well and explore deposits in tons of areas thanks to horizontal drilling.

Right now, it is worth it in my opinion. The development of alternative fuels is in its infancy, despite the fact that you hear daily about growing numbers of available biofuels, hybrids, etc. To me, we should drill the oil, have us all benefit from it, and then scale it back when alternatives reach a level of usability similar to gasoline. They just aren't there yet. Gas has a very high energy density and is easy to handle at room temperature and pressure, so it presents a very formidable challenge to alternatives at this point, especially in the transportation sector. Take corn for example. If every single acre of corn in our country was used exclusively for ethanol production you would replace less than a quarter of the gasoline used today. The "cleanliness" of it is only slightly less than gasoline anyways.

Something has to be done here, I'll give you that. I was recently talking to a very high up oil executive...everyone here would know the name....and the conversation was scary. He claimed that unless we do something about the energy problem in our country - develop new ones and allow the old ones to thrive for the time being - our economy will be around that of a third world country in the next two to three decades. I'm not saying that it's true, but it is definitely eye opening.

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1666043)

One of the many reasons out wallets are hurting is that corn, and a few other products, are being taken out of the food chain and "used" for other reasons.
The studies I have seen show a "savings" of less than 15% if ALL US grown products were used to replace gas.
And right now, with all the rain in the Mid-West, less than 1/2 of the crop is even in the ground! Way behind planting season.
Add to that the drought in other parts of the world, we will be feeling even worse.:(

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1666055)

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid to farmers, who are reaping record profits on their crops, as well - yet we vilify oil companies. It's unreal.

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1666043)

One of the many reasons out wallets are hurting is that corn, and a few other products, are being taken out of the food chain and "used" for other reasons.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1666055)

Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies paid to farmers, who are reaping record profits on their crops, as well - yet we vilify oil companies. It's unreal.

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1666059)

True, it is unreal.
And that DC just is not able to/unwilling to change the Farm bills to correct that matter.:confused::eek::(:mad:
And remember not all farmers are equal. Some of those "farmers" are companies like AMD et al.:(:mad:

Originally Posted by ISUKappa (Post 1666108)

Rob, I really respect your opinion on most all subjects, and considering you actually live in the state, you have a better understanding of the situation than most. I understand the point you're making, but because of my personal and family attachments to agriculture, I can't agree with you 100%. I hate the fact that the vast majority of the subsidies are going to companies like ADM and Cargill, but even small farmers are benefiting from the recent prices.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1666134)

My first step would be to lower the earnings cap - I believe it's currently set at $1.5 million, which seems insane, but I'd guess you have a much better idea than myself and can correct me if I'm missing some key piece of this.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1666036)

It clearly shows the deficit increased exponentially under Clinton, just as it did under Bush. That's my point - that you're twisting one "fact" to fit an argument that doesn't exist.

Now, by avoiding the topic entirely, you're clearly hiding from the light of reason - keep crawling under the rock though.

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1666249)

Tsk, tsk. How you twist things around. Don't you recall that you ended your argument with these words, "We could continue if you'd like, but I think this is more than enough." It wasn't "more than enough." In fact, you still never addressed the chart you posted which pointed out the exact opposite of the point you were attempting to make.

I'll continue the discussion with you, but a few ground rules?

- please stop with the Readers Digest "Expand Your Vocabulary" words. I'm not in the least bit impressed. I see people throwing around these "intellectual" words on message boards when they don't have the substance to back up their points.

- if you're going to make a statement as a "fact," please back it up with attribution. You screwed up royally with the chart you copied and pasted.

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1666039)

But see......a lot of it isn't. Natural gas, for example, is a clean burning energy and you don't have to completely destroy the environment to get it. The amount of regulatory measures and environmental checks required to even begin drilling a well are incredibly high. Where you used to have to drill a new well every time you wanted to explore in a new location, I can drill one well and explore deposits in tons of areas thanks to horizontal drilling.

Right now, it is worth it in my opinion. The development of alternative fuels is in its infancy, despite the fact that you hear daily about growing numbers of available biofuels, hybrids, etc. To me, we should drill the oil, have us all benefit from it, and then scale it back when alternatives reach a level of usability similar to gasoline. They just aren't there yet. Gas has a very high energy density and is easy to handle at room temperature and pressure, so it presents a very formidable challenge to alternatives at this point, especially in the transportation sector. Take corn for example. If every single acre of corn in our country was used exclusively for ethanol production you would replace less than a quarter of the gasoline used today. The "cleanliness" of it is only slightly less than gasoline anyways.

Something has to be done here, I'll give you that. I was recently talking to a very high up oil executive...everyone here would know the name....and the conversation was scary. He claimed that unless we do something about the energy problem in our country - develop new ones and allow the old ones to thrive for the time being - our economy will be around that of a third world country in the next two to three decades. I'm not saying that it's true, but it is definitely eye opening.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1666365)

Thanks for the previous post. :) I will work on getting the reference for you.

I heard what you said that about "biofuels" for ethanol production--we still will not have enough fuel... Most US oil companies say mixed fuels are better. And I remember from 25 years ago during Carter administration, that the Oil Companies did not see profit in self-producing some crude (like it use to) to get more abundant sources from you know who...

The irony is that these ELF freaks think ANY destruction of the environment by human hands is too much. Even after the environmental impact reports, etc. have been completed.

@ bolded--he's right... If something is not done like he said, our economy is going to be worse off. R&D budgets can be increased at area Universities or make it an Gates Grand Challenge/Ansari Prize/Etc. Someone somewhere will come up with a VIABLE realistic solution that has a timetable for a phase out over 20+ years. Not making worse... My Uncle is a VP at a major Energy company in OK. He's saying the same thing...

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1666375)

Oh I know, haha. They definitely freak out about everything. Look, I am a proponent of environmental conservation, not screwing up the land, etc., but at some point we need to use a little common sense. But that's just me. I'm of the mindset that if there is anything that can be done to help this country's people then it should be done. When you drive around East Texas and Fort Worth (with the Barnett Shale) for a small example, you can't help but notice the GOOD that is coming from exploration. Too many people think that guys in our profession just sit back and enjoy the profits that come rolling in when it is quite the opposite. We are just as concerned as everyone else.

Yes. I would agree that mixed fuels are better. One of the reasons why your gas is high right now is because of the switchover to ethanol based gasoline, which burns cleaner than the old MTBE.

Do you mind me asking what energy company in Oklahoma? I had a couple internships in the past with Newfield Exploration and Cheasapeak...Tulsa and OKC respectively...and met a lot of good people from quite a few different companies.