<p>Consider yourself flamed.</p>
<p>Hey, that wasn't so bad! :)</p>
<p>Dang, no argument? Let's drill! Come on over! Of course, the largest drill I have is an ice-fishing auger so maybe we'll just have to be satisfied with the arctic char from the lake out back. I'll make the hot chocolate and we can take the lawn chairs and solve the problems of the world in my husband's little ice fishing shack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hmmm i hope you're joking. i wouldn't blame texas liberals for energy deregulation and the california energy blackouts...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, so that's the reason we can't drill offshore, or in ANWR, or build new refineries, or build new nuclear plants, or why we have to have over a dozen different formulations of gasoline, or why government takes more in taxes from a gallon of gas than the EEEEEEEVIL oil companies do?</p>
<p>Riiiiiiight....</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>If we announced tomorrow that we were opening ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil drilling, and that we were going to build 5 new refineries, and 10 new nuclear power plants, and we were going to cut taxes on fuel by 30%, you'd see PANIC in OPEC and the price of crude would suddenly plummet. NOT because there was suddenly all this supply available (it would take years to bring to market), but rather because it eventually WOULD be available. Their best way to combat the investment to get all that rolling is to make current oil cheaper.</p>
<p>Of course, I'd go on ahead and do the drilling, refining, nuking, and tax-cutting anyway. Hell, I'd do the tax cuts RIGHT NOW.</p>
<p>Something that is NOT talked about is the oil taken out of ANWR is high in sulfur. It is not easily refined. Right now most of the oil pumped down the pipeline is sent to Japan to be refined. </p>
<p>I remember the price of a gallon on gas at Eielson was the same as at Luke with the winter blend. The gas in AK clogged up the fuel injectors in my 3800 GM engine, cause the gas.</p>
<p>Have always felt that more drilling was a jobs program. I can remember that they would burn of natural gas because there wasn't anything to do with it. At one point the was talk of a natural gas pipeline.</p>
<p>There are no simple answers to anything in life.</p>
<p>Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel is THE short/medium term solution to our truck/auto industry polution problems. Europe has been building diesel engines that obliterate the fossil fuel competition in cost, miles per gallon, and pollutants for several years now.</p>
<p>We have already put off the mandatory availability of ULSD at our pumps at least 3 times now. ULSD was to be mandated by 2007 but I just lately heard, the deadline was relaxed AGAIN.</p>
<p>Very sad. The US needs to build advanced refineries NOW (and more than a few of them!)</p>
<p>Zaphod.... you didn't defend the texans at all or comment on what i said, you just attacked the liberals more...</p>
<p>seriously.... for serious...</p>
<p>momof1-
I LOVE Arctic Char! Too bad I have to dish out $20 an entre (luncheon portion!) to get it here at "Legal Seafoods" in the Boston area.</p>
<p>taffy-
All deregulation is good for the country in the end. We just have to figure a way to keep the private company money out of the polititians pockets!</p>
<p>Only california is to blame for the blackouts. And if I recall...that was before "Total Recall" days...:D</p>
<p>Actually, we refine a bit of the pipeline oil right here in North Pole. The bulk of the Eielson jet fuel is refined at the Flint Hills refinery, North Pole. (source: the community impact statement of summer '05 when Eielson was on the chopping block). </p>
<p>AFA81, could you please clarify the statement on the AK gas? Also, Alaska is now on the brink of signing a contract with the oil companies to build a natural gas pipeline. As in the seventies, the price of the commodity is now high enough to support the price of extracting and moving it. That, along with advances in technology and changes to the Alaska Stranded Gases Act have allowed us to move forward with the negotiations.</p>
<p>One problem with Alaska's economy is that we are very similar to a colonial economy. We have very few value added industries, and our major source of income (aside from tourism, which holds its own environmental impacts) is the exploitation of our natural resources. However, unlike most states, a great deal of Alaska's resources fall under federal control. </p>
<p>The American taxpayer supports the Alaskan economy through the money the military pumps into the state, again, relegating the state to a colonial-type status. Is it wrong for Alaskans to aspire to the same economic development which the other states have attained in order to be less dependent on the federal government? As to the jobs program, that infers government intervention. The drilling and the gas pipeline are commercial enterprises, generating private sector jobs, not government works projects which deplete government funds. </p>
<p>While I support developing Alaskan resources, I do agree that alternative fuels should be aggressively sought. I was also evidently sufficiently brainwashed by my 1973 tour through the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant (just outside Portland, Oregon) since I do believe that nuclear power is safe and efficient. I have often wondered, as well, why a commercial nuclear powered merchant ship sits in the Charleston Harbor, out of service (toured that, too) when the Navy has successfully operated nuclear ships for decades. </p>
<p>As a proponent of competition and the open marketplace,(yes, even for teachers) I don't see how creating jobs, bringing a commodity to market under favorable circumstances, and creating additional tax revenues is a negative. </p>
<p>Just my 2 cents. Oh, and I work on Eielson. Great place, IMO.</p>
<p>Dad 2B $20.00! OMG! We feed it to the husky! We feed the lab salmon.</p>
<p>
<p>seriously.... for serious...
</p>
<p>First off, the liberals deserved it.</p>
<p>Secondly, why would I defend the Texans? a) I don't know anything about that particular item, b) if they are responsible, they're worthy of scorn.</p>
<p>That said, little is accomplished by saying (as I understood you to say) that Texans are responsible for our energy problems when, even if they had a small role, it is dwarfed in comparison by what liberals in general have done to cause them.</p>
<p>
<p>AFA81, could you please clarify the statement on the AK gas?
</p>
<p>The high sulfur clogged the injectors. </p>
<p>Yes, I have a great love for AK. Combat fishing, sledding next to pipeline, ice fishing, outdoor ice hockey at the big dipper, the public schools, and the best chinese food in the world at Pagoda.</p>
<p>Our family lived on Eielson.</p>
<p>Its just easier to attack the "liberals" than acknowledge that conservatives have had a decade to unwind what the liberals have supposedly stopped.<br>
As always, idealogues never want to let a few good facts get in the way of an argument.</p>
<p>So who is denying it?</p>
<p>I've said elsewhere on this board that while liberals have quite definitely hosed it up, the Republicans sure as hell haven't fixed it.</p>
<p>That's why I'm a Conservative first and a Republican second. The clowns currently in power all ran as Conservatives but are govorning as...... COWARDS.</p>
<p>
First off, the liberals deserved it.</p>
<p>Secondly, why would I defend the Texans? a) I don't know anything about that particular item, b) if they are responsible, they're worthy of scorn.</p>
<p>That said, little is accomplished by saying (as I understood you to say) that Texans are responsible for our energy problems when, even if they had a small role, it is dwarfed in comparison by what liberals in general have done to cause them.
</p>
<p>first off, interesting philosophy,</p>
<p>secondly, if you dont know about that particular item (the basis of my first post..) then don't try to reply to it</p>
<p>That said, there you go again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That said, there you go again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. See item 1. :D</p>