Yes we can; but much like the Germans, we haven't found anything as economical. I see it more as an issue of economic warfare.

Nice how you sidestepped the issue of who's going to fund this executive order to make use of alternative fuels mandatory. Simply restating your original point without answering the tough questions that the point raises is a poor way to make your point. There can be no "impetus" economically to a proven loser such as alternative fuels have been proven to be compared to oil as they both stand today. When they become an actual viable, economically sound alternative, the free market will push the changes needed to allow alternative fuels to replace oil. In the meantime, refer to the aforementioned Crockett/Bunce story and really pay attention to the part about the federal government's role in spending.

And just as an aside, not a personal hit, why is it that people who are against, or opposed to, sources such as ANWR and nuclear power, are almost always in favor of hemp production? Not that I have anything against hemp, just a question.

I missed that somehow. What I heard him say was ANWR was one of the last unpolluted places on earth and the oil there wasn't enough to make a difference. His term was "band-aid".

I showed how the oil in ANWR was equivalent to what we imported from Iraq. We both showed how the drilling footprint was infinitesimal compared to the entire ANWR area. We can show that any drilling can be done environmentally friendly. And finally, the graphic I linked to showed other nearby drilling to ANWR.

All of this proves the enviros really are about defeating corporate America. I can demonstrate conclusively that if we converted every producing acre of farmland in America to soy beans we could not produce enough bio diesel to meet demand. We already can see how using corn has affected the cost of basic food stuffs.

Tyson raises grain cost increase to $500 million | News | Breaking News | Feedstuffs

When was the last time we had a nuclear accident either here or anywhere in the world? Who was the last person to die from radiation exposure at a nuclear plant? Yet the enviros will tell us with a straight face that nuclear power is unsafe.

I don't know about you and Norrin, but I've lived through the long gas lines. I've seen gas stations put out signs,


Every time our supplies get short and the cost of gas rises, the politicians investigate the oil companies to see if they are manipulating the market. I don't remember even one case of market manipulation ever being discovered. At the same time, the investigators and politicians won't tell us that we are running short of supplies. The say we need to "conserve". They all want us to drive little go-carts with rubber band powered motors.


I'll end my little rant by saying that I've been involved in this debate for over 35 years. In all that time I've never found a satisfied enviro. Every time an engineer finds a potential solution, the folks at places like the Sierra Club find a reason it isn't acceptable.

RJ

Look, I will be the first to admit that most of the envorinmental movement has been hijacked by socialists.

I hate the enviro-whackos, but this is only a small group of people. To label everyone who cares about the envifonment as a whacko is simply absurd. Most people who care about the environment would never even consider throwing paint on a fur coat, or blowing up an SUV.

You r example about soybeans and corn is a typical misdirection from people who usually support the "establishment" on almost every single issue.

It is pure propaganda. No one on this thread has suggested that oil could be replaced by any energy crop. NO ONE.

It is obvious that no SINGLE source can replace oil in the USA. What we need it an investment in all of the alternative sources for energy. Solar, wind, energy crops, as well as continued devlopement of energy efficient technologies and battery technologies.

I remember once seeing a story on "Beyond 2000" an Australian show presenting new inventions and ideas, where a man claimed to double his mileage for his car, while reducing pollution, just by adding detergent to gasoline, with some modifications to the carberator. I never heard another word about this story.

With all of these studies on energy crops, EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM IS TAINTED, AS NONE OF THEM USE THE PLANT THAT IS BEST SUITED FOR USE AS AN ENERGY CROP.

Do you know what that plant is?

It is hemp. A plant that is illegal to grow in the USA all because our government was tricked into passing the marijuana tax act back in 1937 based on newspaper articles which were all lies and propaganda.

The American people allowed this to happen because they are content to have others do their thinking for them. No one has ever researched hemp and believes it should be illegal. NO ONE.

The hemp industry is booming, with sales growing every year, but the USA is the ONLY COUNTRY WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE SO BRAINWASHED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED HEMP CROP.

Gee, ever wonder why?

Probably not, as to you, why should you care? Why would anyone care about the truth who loves to support an establishment that cares nothing about the people, caring only about profits?

btw, if you look at the estimated reserves of ANWR and current US oil consumption, it is a band-aid. It is only 1-3 years of US oil consumption.

Like I said earlier, which you somehow missed, I would be more than happy to allow drilling in the ANWR if the US would make a "real" investment in alternative energy, to help wean us off the oil tit.

You, on the other hand, seem eager to allow the oil companies to continue to rape us at the pump, while helping scumbag regimes to profit of our gluttony.

Why? Good question.

Maybe it is because people who favor energy crops who have actually bothered to do their own research, know that hemp is the best candidate for an energy crop.

You see, some people are not content to let others do their thinking for them.

Some people do not just sit on their fat, lazy asses and let the "establishment" tell them what to think.

Ever research hemp?

Since you seem to be rather inquisitive, I think you would find the research very informative and eye opening.

Ever read about the HEMP car? It traveled all across the USA in 1999, receiving almost no attention from the media. Almost every article about it in the Mass Media was a blurb, usually a single paragraph, or two. I only saw one good story about the Hemp car in all of the mass media. That story was done by the Detroit News.

As to the Bunce/Crocket story, I am glad you found it interesting. Govenrment spending is out of control and the story helps show how welfare is unconstitutional.

Ever look to see how much corporate welfare oil companies receive? I guess we need to help an industry that is making record profits.

Do you know anyone who is making fuel from used fryer grease from a restaraunt? I do. Gee, why would someone go to all that trouble?

Did you know that FORD is currently working on a car made from HEMP fibers? Of course they are working on in the UK, since hemp is illegal in the USA.

Gee, I wonder why hemp is illegal in the USA? Oh yeah, I already covered that.

[QUOTE=Norrin Radd;1150312]
Thank you!

Maybe, but they are vocal enough to stifle energy production

Here we go! I guess anything I say is flawed because I support the establishment. You say we need to invest in various forms of energy technology. But you disregard all the proven sources and talk about hemp.

That's right. After four years of engineering school and a lifetime of engineering work, I'm brainwashed. I want everyone to do my thinking for me. I really don't care about the truth.

You, on the other hand, have seen an Australian show about mixing laundry soap and gasoline. That makes you an expert. Everything else is just propaganda.

How are they raping us at the pump? Oil has to be searched out and then drilled for. It has to be done in mostly foreign countries, some of whom are very hostile to the US. Then it has to be transported and refined. After refining it has to be reblended according to local standards. Then it has to distributed to the consumer via a very expensive distribution system. For all that, the oil companies make about ten cents profit per gallon. I have to wonder about your definition of rape.

And please don't say "our" gluttony. I am not a glutton, never have been, and never will be.

RJ

I am of the opinion, that the only reason the Germans did not already invent better and cleaner fuels and technologies was due to the relatively short length of that government. Once the war ended there was no longer a war effort as an impetus for further research and development (as was the case in other war related technologies, and by logical extension, the Space Race).

Why would oil be any more significant than any other commodity, in relation to influence, if we had pursued a course of an Energy Race instead of a Space Race or Arms Race?

I think funding of this type of order could be considered within the normal budget of the executive branch since it could be accomplish by attrition of older vehicles. A certain portion of new vehicles could be required to be alternative fuel capable, thus creating more of a market for those vehicles and incentive for better product development for the private sector.

You misstate my position in regards to a nature preserve. I am not opposed to drilling, if it is outside of the boundary of the preserve. I have already explained how it could be done without the need for a footprint within a nature preserve.

There would be no objection to drilling from outside of the nature preserve. I find the private sector rationale somewhat specious in that regard given the marginal utility of the reserves available from that source.

Extended reach drilling could enable extraction of that resource from outside the nature preserve and still be within convenient distance to a pumping station and the Alaska pipeline.

Tax incentives could make that option feasible, while encouraging development in more efficient drilling and material transport technologies that could result in future cost saving from such ventures.

So being a environmentalist is a bad thing, especially with the good of the citizens and the country? Its cheaper to dispose of waste properly (Superfund sites are a plenty, especially communities where ya know people live), cheaper to not pollute your water sources, cheaper to come up with something before you run out of oil. Peak oil is just around the bend, 2010 if your pessimistic and 2020 or 2030 if your a little less pessimistic. Either way we need a replacement for oil yesterday, of that there is no doubt. Also, you seem to love blaming environmentalist for being unreasonable but you can't honestly tell me the Oil companies/auto manufactures don't also have blame as well.

The only thing that is certain from here out is that oil/gas is going to get more expensive, especially as China & India get more and more into providing cars for its huge population. Myself, I'm probably going to build myself an alternative fuel car or truck soon instead of waiting for the manufactures and government to provide a solution. Of course those alternative vehicles don't really work that well on a large scale as with oil but on an individual basis is works fine.

By the way, I'm an environmentalist who is for Nuclear power, if only because its the lesser of two evils. Coal after all isn't clean, and yet it still is the main source of electricity for the United States. As long as its managed properly of course (No cutting corners like they did in the 70's with some power plants), and they plants are protected from virtual/physical attack and as long as the waste is of course disposed of properly.

The Nazi research into alternative fuel sources was borne of desperation, and never would have occurred if they had had a reliable source of crude oil great enough to meet the needs of their industry. They came up with some promising prospects, but nothing as economical or versatile as crude. As I’ve stated a number of times, I have no doubt we could replace most of our dependence on oil, but at what price? At what cost to our industry? There’s nothing to suggest that the alternatives would be as cheap as oil, putting our industry at a distinct disadvantage.

Huh, are you smoking rope?

The NAZI's get gasohol form where? Where did they learn how to make it? How important was it to their war effort?

The Germans were able to fight WWII through the use of synthetic fuels that were created by the hydrogenation process (turning coal into gasoline).
This process was discovered by I.G. Farben. Hydrogenation technology would not have been fully developed by WWII, but I.G. Farben made a deal with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, who was able to complete the research, facilitating the war. Interestingly, I.G. Farben plants were not targeted by the bombing raids on Germany. By the end of the war the refineries had experienced only 15% damage. William Dodd, American ambassador to Germany before WWII, wrote President Roosevelt: "At the present moment, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings. 'The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I.G. Farben Company... 'Standard Oil Company ... sent $2,000,000 here in December, 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans improve hydrogenation technology] ... ,,The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% year, but they could take nothing [earnings] out [except in goods]. ‘Even our airplanes people have secret arrangements with Krupps. ‘General Motors Company [which was controlled by the J.P. Morgan Group] and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out." Germany needed the capital of these, and many more American companies in order to wage a war. I.G. Farben had a holding company in the United States called American I.G. Farben. Paul Warburg, his brother Max (head of Germanys secret police during WWI), and Warburg agent Herman Metz were some of the members of the board of directors of the American I.G. Farben. Other directors included Rockefeller/International banking men (Edsel Ford, Charies Mitchell, Walter Teagle, etc) . Three Germans on the Board of Governors were convicted as war criminals after the war, but the elite Americans fore-mentioned were not, even though they participated in the same criminal decisions as those who were punished. According to author Eustice Mullins, Hitier met with Allen and John Foster Dulles in 1933.

ADOLPH HITLER

In two gears Germany will be manufacturing oil and gas enough out of soft coal for a long war. The Standard Oil of New York is furnishing millions of dollars to help. (Report from the Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany, January 1933, to State Department in Washington, D.C,)

Accordingly [concluded the Kilgore Committee] Standard fully accomplished I.G.'s purpose of preventing United States production by dissuading American rubber companies from undertaking independent research in developing synthetic rubber processes.3

The I.G. Farben files captured at the end of the war confirm the importance of this particular technical transfer for the German Wehrmacht:

Since the beginning of the war we have been in a position. to produce lead tetraethyl solely because, a short time before the outbreak of the war, the Americans had established plants for us ready for production and supplied us with all available experience. In this manner we did not need to perform the difficult work of development because we could start production right away on the basis of all the experience that the Americans had had for years.13

In 1938, just before the outbreak of war in Europe, the German Luftwaffe had an urgent requirement for 500 tons of tetraethyl lead. Ethyl was advised by an official of DuPont that such quantities of ethyl would be used by Germany for military purposes.14 This 500 tons was loaned by the Ethyl Export Corporation of New York to Ethyl G.m.b.H. of Germany, in a transaction arranged by the Reich Air Ministry with I.G. Farben director Mueller-Cunradi. The collateral security was arranged in a letter dated September 21, 193815 through Brown Brothers, Harriman & Co. of New York.


Standard Oil of New Jersey and Synthetic Rubber

The transfer of ethyl technology for the Nazi war machine was repeated in the case of synthetic rubber. There is no question that the ability of the German Wehrmacht to fight World War II depended on synthetic rubber — as well as on synthetic petroleum — because Germany has no natural rubber, and war would have been impossible without Farben's synthetic rubber production. Farben had a virtual monopoly of this field and the program to produce the large quantities necessary was financed by the Reich:

The volume of planned production in this field was far beyond the needs of peacetime economy. The huge costs involved were consistent only with military considerations in which the need for self-sufficiency without regard to cost was decisive.16


CHAPTER FOUR: Standard Oil Fuels World War II

The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest, [1] was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany's relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 -- and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.

Evidence presented to the Truman, Bone, and Kilgore Committees after World War II confirmed that Standard Oil had at the same time "seriously imperiled the war preparations of the United States." [2] Documentary evidence was presented to all three Congressional committees that before World War II, Standard Oil had agreed with I.G. Farben, in the so-called Jasco agreement, that synthetic rubber was within Farben's sphere of influence, while Standard Oil was to have an absolute monopoly in the U.S. only if and when Farben allowed development of synthetic rubber to take place in the U.S.:

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/...cle=HitlerCh04

Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey [now Exxon] in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. [now Ethyl, Inc.] which, according to Snell: "provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel [leaded gas]. During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany's scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: 'The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.'" (7)

Nazis.net - Shadow Of The Swastika Part II

///////

I was looking for a specific quote, but I was unable to find it. It was from a German officer who claimed that their war effort would have been impossible if not for the US oil companies teaching Germany how to make fuel from coal. Of course the quote is not necessary to see that this was the case, but it was a great quote, one in which I will find again eventually.

The US corporations helped immensely in the build up of the NAZI war machine. The last link I posted above is a must read, for anyone who actually cares about the truth. Actually all of the links are must reads, as it proves that US corporations don't give a flying fuck about the American people and are willing to trade with our enemies, even during a war.

[QUOTE=Richard J;1150490]Gee, I dunno, maybe it has something to price collusion. Ever notice how the price of gasoline is usually close to the same price, depending on location?

One part of town all the prices are close to the same, while on another part of town, the prices are different, but all the gas stations have close to the same prices that are close to each other.

How about those record profits from two years ago?

Jan. 30, 2006

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.

Exxon’s profit for the year was also the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for Standard & Poor’s. He said the previous high was Exxon’s $25.3 billion profit in 2004.

ConocoPhillips said last Wednesday that its fourth-quarter earnings rose 51 percent to $3.68 billion, while annual income climbed 66 percent to $13.53 billion. Two days later, Chevron Corp. said its fourth-quarter earnings rose 20 percent to $4.14 billion, while annual income jumped 6 percent to $14.1 billion.

Exxon Mobil posts record 4Q profit of $10.7 billion - Earnings - MSNBC.com

Oxy reports record profit on oil prices

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 30, 2008
Record oil prices pushed Occidental Petroleum Corp. to record profit for the fourth quarter and all of 2007, the Westwood company said Tuesday.

Occidental earned $1.5 billion, or $1.74 a share, during the fourth quarter of 2007, up from $930 million, or $1.09, during the same three months in 2006. That was well above the $1.69 that had been predicted by analysts polled by Thomson Financial.

Sign Up

NEW YORK, Jan 30 (Reuters) - Murphy Oil Corp (MUR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday its fourth-quarter earnings more than doubled as oil prices soared to record levels.

UPDATE 1-Murphy Oil profits more than double on record oil | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

Shell is expected to announce earnings of £13.4billion today - the biggest-ever profit by a British company.

The oil giant is likely to report that profits have risen 12 per cent since last year, pushed up amid fears of instability in the Middle East.

Shell's 'obscene' £13.4billion profit breaks British record | the Daily Mail




The oil companies' profits, thanks to US foreign and domestic policy, have risen to sickening levels. A 51% increase in one year, if that isn't rape, then what is?

All because our government licks the boots of their corporate masters?

Even with record profits, the oil companies still get tax incentives from the government, funded by your tax dollars and mine.

It's pretty sad when we are getting raped by the oil companies and some people don't even realize it.

So, how much money does the oil industry spend lobbying Congress?

The Wall Street Journal today reports that the major oil companies successfully “beat back” attempts by Congress to have oil companies pay their fair share in taxes:

Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips beat back an attempt by senators to raise their taxes by nearly $6 billion.

The Senate version of the bill at one point included a provision that would have cost the five largest oil companies — companies with average daily production of 500,000 barrels; gross receipts of more than $1 billion dollars in 2005 and an ownership in a refinery of 15% or more — about $5 billion by changing how they account for oil inventory. House Republicans dropped the provision from the final version of the bill.

A separate Senate measure would have stripped $700 million in tax incentives for large oil companies to explore for oil and gas. That provision, too, was dropped from the compromise bill that emerged from House-Senate negotiations.

Looks like Big Oil has been putting their record profits to good use.

PoliticalMoneyLine has a new analysis on how they’ve been spending their money. In 2005, the top ten oil companies spent a whopping $33,173,092 lobbying Congress and the Bush administration. The numbers are broken down by company below:

Think Progress » Big Oil’s Lobbying Efforts Pay Off

Spiffy post, too bad it didn’t address any of the points I was making. I already said the Nazis were successful at finding alternative sources of oil, but they could never produce it in the quantity required by their industry and military. The fact that they sent out companies of armored vehicles on a major offensive with garden hoses instead of fuel trucks should tell you something. What do you think the chances are that Hitler would have invested in such an effort if he’d had access to a large enough supply of crude oil to keep the wheels of his war machine turning? The point I’ve been trying to make is that, while there are alternative energy sources available, they just aren’t economically viable at this time.

They aren't economically viable because the US government has been giving corporate welfare to the oil companies for decades. If the government would invest the same amount of money in alternative fuels that has been given to the oil companies over the last 50 years, then chances are, alternative fuels would become economically feasible.

We have allowed the oil companies to purchase legislation in this country for a long time. Now, with oil near 100 dollars a barrel, alternative energy is becoming more and more attractive.

Have you seen this story?

Anything Into Oil

Anything Into Oil | Alternative Energy | DISCOVER Magazine

I was wondering, did you ever bother to read the paper I have posted numerous times on using hemp as biomass for energy?

Hemp Biomass for Energy

No? I didn't think so.

We all know alternative energy is more expensive than oil and fossil fuels, but most NEW technologies always are. As the NEW technologies are developed, the price almost always comes down as new ideas to cut costs are looked for and usually found.

I don't know about you, but I would be willing to pay more for my gasoline and my electricity, if I knew that it would lead to the ability to tell all the countries in the Middle East exactly what they can do with their oil because we don't need it anymore.