Discussion | 65 comments

The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

• James E.February 20, 2012 - 4:24 pm

  Ms. Galindo, should President Obama not be reelected (don't hold your breath for longer than 5 minutes), he will be buying his groceries and gas with the approximate $235,000 retirement pay he will receive in 2013. So make a note of your federal tax bill in 2013, and be aware that all of the money you pay will be going to buying groceries and gas for the "former" president. A strange victory of hope for you.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 5:24 pm

  First of all, you are referring to President Obama...not Barack. Second I sincerely hope that in the future you research before espousing your "opinion". Oil prices are determined by speculators, part of the free market ideology so lovingly embraced by Republicans. Oil prices are NOT determined by the President, whom by the way is working very hard to decrease our dependence on oil, oil that puts money in the hands of those who wish us harm, and seeking alternative sources of fuel thereby creating more jobs for more Americans to spend at the grocery store. Save your anger for G.W. Bush who created this mess. President Obama is black and smarter than you..deal with it.

• Jack MartinFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:48 pm

  Ahhh, I remember the first time Bill Clinton was running for office. The economy was nowhere near as bad as it has been these past two years, but the bumper stickers for Clinton said "It's the economy stupid" as a not-so-veiled message that George HW Bush was supposed to be fixing it. Now, here we are a mere 20 years later and the apologists are coming out of the woodwork to lecture us on "economical realities" about how the President cannot fix it (even though Obama said he would). Or even better, still blame it on Bush...

• Ken SteersFebruary 20, 2012 - 5:36 pm

  Joni, He didn't sound angry. Speculators do have an impact on oil prices. But please do some research as to who the Speculators from Wall Street backed last election. You'll find that they overwhelmingly supported President Barrack Hussein Obama. I assume when you named a GW Bush you were talking about President Bush...

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 5:47 pm

  Really, interesting considering that he vocalized support for placing regulations on speculators due to it's negative effect BEFORE the last election. I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering many conservatives vote against their best interest. The majority of those associated with the oil industry overwhelmingly vote and financially back Republicans.

• Ken SteersFebruary 20, 2012 - 5:57 pm

  Joni do your homework. Wall Street votes Democrat. Futures Markets are Wall Street and President Barrack Hussein Obama's home town of Chicago. In which votes predomently (D). Now I would guess since now you bring in the entire oil industry that oil field workers might vote (R). And about you being upset about not calling the current president President. How do you adress the last president again?

• James E.February 20, 2012 - 7:16 pm

  Joni, Mr. Steers uses the Hussein thing when he wants to poke Democrats with a sharp stick. It takes away from his message.

• Jack MartinFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:54 pm

  How do you "poke" Democrats over the President's given name? If his supporters are somehow uncomfortable when his middle name is used, doesn't that say something more about THEIR insecurities?

• James E.February 20, 2012 - 9:29 pm

  Mr. Martin, when you sign in as Jack (insert middle name) Martin we'll understand about the middle name thing.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 10:18 pm

  You are so right James! I don't recall in my lifetime a President's middle name being used, other than in a very formal setting. The use of a middle initial is common. It's rather obvious what their intent is. I guess I need thicker skin for their sharp sticks!

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 6:28 pm

  Wow, you had to use his middle name Hussein again. Throw in a little fear to your low intelligence, racist, angry, white, Tea Bagger base. Most rational people would figure a middle name is of little consequence. Does having a German middle name mean you are a Nazi? Are you scared and shaking in your boots cuz some "foreigner" who's a socialist Muslim is gonna take over your country? I suggest you go to factcheck.org which is non-partisan and turn off Fox"News".

• Ken SteersFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:37 pm

  Actually Joni I did as you asked and referred to him as President. You know a sign of respect that you couldn't abide by in you same sentence regarding President Bush. Can you explain to my what qualifies you to think you can label me a racist? And regarding labels, are your examples you give your perception on reality? Does calling the President by his entire name bow label me a racist. This is interesting please explain

• Jack MartinFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:58 pm

  Joni, this is a weak response. Visceral and weak. It's like reading the talking points from Media Matters, Salon, and MoveOn. Just a bunch of platitudes... You said that "most rational people would figure a middle name is of little consequence", and you're right. So why are YOU so defensive about its use?

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 9:37 pm

  When it's use is purely to create a reaction (negative) I will object. It is rather obvious that the name Hussain has a negative connotation..would you not agree? What would compell someone to use a name that is so unpopular in our culture? The purpose to use it would be to cause an instant unfavorable opinion. A gut reaction. The name Hitler would have the same effect. You have a man who is President and black, which in itself is enough for a certain segment of our society to question his right to ofice, mix in a middle name associated with a dictator we went to war with, question his faith and you have an angry mob of middle aged white people called the "Tea Party". Fear mongering at it's finest.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 9:44 pm

  BTW... I used his FULL name (blog below) in a POSITIVE way to negate those that would defame his character based on his MIDDLE name!

• Ken SteersFebruary 21, 2012 - 12:15 am

  Jack, Help me understand. Joni corrects the writer by stating he should call Obama president and then doesn't call Bush president. Then accuses me of being racist because I use Obama's middle name. Huh? Who has a worse middle name? Richard Milhouse or Barrack Hussein?

• Jack MartinFebruary 21, 2012 - 12:41 am

  Well, that's because Bush "stole" the election - just ask anybody. LOL So he never duly earned the title. Yeah, call me Hussein any day of the week before calling me Milhouse. The Dems will always want it both ways. You see, when we use BHO's full three names, it is a way of adding......."gravity".....to the topic.Much like you knew you were in trouble when you were a kid and your mom called you by all three names. They do the same thing when pounding a podium and cursing "George....Dubya.....Bush", they do it to add drama to the name-calling. Fair enough. But when we do it to President Barack Hussein Obama for the very same purpose, well then it's just racist. The race card is played because it's all they know to do when losing the argument.

• TerryFebruary 20, 2012 - 6:59 pm

  Joni, why so angry? Oil prices are impacted by speculators but also by demand and supply. With booming economies in China and India, worldwide demand has been up for the last decade. The problems with Iran have cut production at least to the western world. The Saudi's just announced a cut in production. So supply is slipping. US production of crude is up but no thanks to the President who has done virtually everything in his power to reduce domestic production. Had we started drilling when President Bush (43) wanted to, our domestic supplies would be up now. Had we started drilling after the 2008 election (remember Drill Baby Drill) domestic supplies would be up more. We continue to fund the oil barons in the ME because we are handcuffed by the domestic environmentalists and by the stupid global warming religion. Their solution is biofuels and alternates which require high petroleum prices to be economical or high subsidies to compete. Corn is $6.45/bu today. That is high. It is one of the reasons meat prices are up. President Carter started the DOE to make us energy independent. They are a dismal failure. After 35 years we still do not have an energy independence plan that is workable.

• Jerry GreenFebruary 20, 2012 - 7:42 pm

  Republican/Teabaggers can bank on the fact that many Americans do not understand simple economics. Oil is an international commodity. Go ahead- drill baby drill all you like. All the oil produced here goes on the world market. If we were to flood the market in an attempt to lower the price, OPEC would immediately cut production to keep the supply down and hence keep the prices up.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 10:25 pm

  @ Jerry: Sadly you are correct! We are in a no win situation with our dependence on oil and producing it ourselves will not solve this.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 7:56 pm

  Your solution: continue to purchase oil from foreign countries while destroying our own environment to yield a limited supply of our own? Either way, domestic or foreign, oil companies and vulture capitalists will find a way to manipulate prices by fabricating market uncertainties and limiting refinery production! This is all a moot point! Combustible engines and fossil fules are antichronistic as our "good buddy" Ricky "in the closet" Santorum would say. In fact, we've already experienced the paradigm shift...Energy companies and the free market have determined the winner... renewable energy. Energy companies are rebranding their names while investing billions in R&D and funding for inovative entrepreneurial start up companies to perfect necessary technologies and develop the market place. Within 10 years the the cost to produce and the savings to end users will invert, creating an emerging market where as the energy companies ROI and potential energy stream will dictate to their stockholders that they purchase the best of these industry leaders. You'll have a raging economy and environment similar to the dot com boom of the 90's where IBM bought hundreds of networking and technology companies, creating thousands of billionaires and millionaires. So sit back and ride the capitalist tiger!!! Thank God for Barack Hussain Obama!

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 9:41 pm

  Sorry, I must correct my spelling errors... anachronistic and fuel.... I was blogging while getting kids ready for bed!

• J. OthersideFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:05 pm

  Correct Mr. Green. And unfortunately, the cradle to grave thermodynamics of oil has not been overtaken yet. Punch a hole in the ground and out come the BTUs, with the end product of CO2 and a bit of ash. Nothing else to date even comes close, not nuclear, not solar, not wind, not water, not coal, not hydrogen, not fuel cells. I started to think that conservation and environmental considerations would tip the balance but gave up on that as well. Regardless of what the politicians claim, until some as yet unforeseen energy breakthrough appears, not much is going to change for awhile.

• JoniFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:17 pm

  I fail to believe that our country, which has proven to be a world leader in technological innovations cannot find a more environmentally sound solution to our fuel needs. Inability to do so will only allow other countries, such as China to dominate the alternative energy market. Lobbyists, speculators etc. should not dictate, based on their own financial gain the security of America.Our dependence on oil will be our downfall.

• J. OthersideFebruary 20, 2012 - 8:22 pm

  Totally agree, Joni. Just hasn't happened yet. As a favorite saying on these forums, follow the money which is going to lead back to oil for longer that anyone wants, for sure.

• GeraldFebruary 21, 2012 - 5:06 am

  I just saw the winning bumper sticker: Osama Bin Laudin is dead and General Motors is still alive! And I am not an Obama fan but this is going to be hard to dispute or counter.

• Jack MartinFebruary 21, 2012 - 10:24 pm

  GM was resuscitated at the expense of (depending whom you believe) $75 M to $115 M, and we the taxpayers funded it. The first stage of the loan they "repaid" was achieved by using the TARP funds set aside for them. In other words, they paid off the loan to the taxpayers by using the TARP funds provided by the taxpayers. I discovered this after doing a little digging because I became suspicious of their TV commercial wherein GM's new CEO Ed Whitacre (deep pockets Obama contributor) crowed about the fact that they had repaid the loan with interest. I wondered how they could have done that, because even as of that date, they had yet to turn a profit. Anyway, as of today, we the taxpayers still own approximately 26% of GM's stock and the Obama administration wants to sell it off so it is not an issue at the election. If we sell it now at it's present value of $27 a share, we will walk away with a net loss of (again, depending whom you believe) $21 B to $33 B. Whoever faces Obam in the general election should indeed hang this around his shoulders.

• JoniFebruary 21, 2012 - 10:54 pm

  @ Jack... Let your "research" stand the scrutiny of a real investigation if you want credibility. You have no facts to back your claim... for all I know you could be quoting Glen Beck. I find it odd that with all ruckus the GOP had over the bailout, they haven't made the same "discovery" as you apparently have.

• Jack MartinFebruary 22, 2012 - 5:36 pm

  The United States Treasury owns roughly 500 million shares of common stock in General Motors. (Source: U.S. Treasury) The Treasury would need to sell these shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the investment. (Source: WSJ) Using Google Finance API, we multiply the current GM stock price by 500,065,254, and subtract that total from $26,503,458,462 (or, 500,065,254 x $53). http://www.bailoutcost.com/ You'll learn that when I cite facts, statistics, historical events, etc., I can ALWAYS source it. Now the ball is in your court. Present credible evidence to the contrary.

• Jack MartinFebruary 22, 2012 - 5:40 pm

  One minor correction.... When I previously cited the total loss of $21B to $33B, I got a little ahead of myself and mixed "bailouts." That amount is the approximate TOTAL we will lose between the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. http://wot.motortrend.com/new-report-says-treasury-will-lose-23-77-billion-on-bailouts-of-chrysler-gm-163223.html

• MichaelFebruary 21, 2012 - 10:01 am

  Great sticker, and it sums up why the President will be reelected.

• TerryFebruary 21, 2012 - 8:28 pm

  Joni and others Where to start? First stop looking at energy as a single issue and look at it and its global ramifications. 1) Oil has been used as a weapon against us since 1973 when the world realized that we had an addiction to it and would not solve the problem internally. 2) Oil is a strategic commodity, our military and industry cannot run without it. 3) High oil prices and shortages cripple our economy. Example, 1973, 1979 and the current recession which was not helped by the $4+ prices in 2008. 4) Industry will move to wherever energy, labor, regulation and taxes are lower. 5) We have actively had combat troops in the ME since 1991, 21 years. What is that costing us? 6) Our oil dollars are funding the radicals that have been attacking us. 7) We have a large trade imbalance much of it energy related. 8) We have trillions of barrels of oil within our territorial limits. Even more coal. 9) We have a shortage of jobs currently in this country but by contrast a shortage of labor in the ND oil fields. 10) We have lower local, state and federal tax receipts because of our lagging economy. The solution is jobs not stimulus. 11) Profitable domestic oil companies and oil lease holders pay taxes. 12) Oil generates added government income with separation fees. See Alaska as an example. 13) Natural gas prices have come down in this country due to the plays in PA & TX. An example of the positive results is that a formerly declining US industry that has been moving offshore for 20 years is coming back – Ethylene. 14) Yes oil prices are determined by the global market but oil supplies, hence artificial shortages are determined by the source. If the oil is ours, OPEC cannot turn off the tap. 15) China is actively buying up all the sources of oil they can find and are more than happy to take whatever supplies they can from western hemisphere sources. Could there be a plan here? They are funding Cuban drilling, contracting for Brazilian oil and are after the Canadian Tar Sands. I could add more to this list. I hope you will take the time to see the bigger picture. I will follow up on the other issues.

• Robert ZFebruary 21, 2012 - 8:40 pm

  Terry, careful, reality hurts some people LOL. many roads lead to China...

• TerryFebruary 21, 2012 - 8:57 pm

  As for the environment, yes oil spills and releases will happen just the same as auto accidents will happen. You still drive despite the risks. Pumping oil from a third world country is just moving the potential environmental risks to a society less capable of handling the consequences. Your environmental fears are vastly overblown. Global warming is a hoax. CO2 is historically a trailing not leading indicator of warming. The much ballyhooed prediction models of the AGW crowd have FAILED to predict anything. In my work, I use some of the same mathematical tools they do. I would not dream of implementing a model that is not validated, i.e. it must accurately predict real data that was not included in the model. Their models do not include the effects of clouds especially those initiated by solar cosmic rays. Clouds have a huge impact on global warming. You experience that first hand on cool cloudy days and warm cloudy nights. The models represent a finely balanced set of equations which can be tipped out of balance with the simplest omission of a key unknown variable. The key word is unknown, we won't know what we don't know until we know it. On this you are willing to gamble our economy? Also I would not dream that an accurate average value (mean global temperature) can be computed from data with as wide a variation as global temperatures. Not only does the data vary wildly from day to night, season to season, location to location and century to century but the measurement tools also have significant variation in accuracy, location, and inferential models (tree rings etc.). Too often I have seen statistically “accurate” results quoted only to be proven wrong later. If you doubt me, just look up the historical speed of light measurements and compare the overlap in the error bars. This is a fundamental physical constant without any of the complexity in the global mean temperature determinations. In such a complex measurement there are just too many variables to determine an average value that is meaningful. Not to mention that there is a significant concern that the Central Limit Theorem does not apply in this case, hence a global average temperature would not be statistically determinable. In the short history of man on this earth, we have thrived during warm spells and suffered during cold. If natural warming is occurring, our best defense is a strong economy as this will provide us with the resources to overcome the adversities and to take advantage of the positives.

• TerryFebruary 21, 2012 - 9:40 pm

  Now on to alternative energy. Yes I support research into alternate forms of energy including government research grants. I do not support government subsidies of alternate energy production. It must live and die by global economics. Similarly, I do not support tax breaks and subsidies for conventional energy sources nor do I support unnecessary regulations and roadblocks to favor either party. Many oil companies have moved into alternate energy research and development as a politically necessary defense. Now for specifics: 1) Ethanol production from corn, neither economically nor environmentally beneficial. The energy gain, i.e. amount of resultant energy compared to input energy is minimal if not negative. The same goes for the carbon foot print but that is immaterial. Consumption of corn for energy has driven up food prices so the real cost is much higher than that at the pump. In addition no one seems to be concerned about what will happen to the soil as more farmers move to corn only production to increase profits. Corn is a high erosion, high soil depleting crop. Ethanol does not have the same energy density as gasoline, so fuel mileage will suffer. 2) Hydrogen – the fuel of the future and always will be. Hydrogen is energy intensive to make and difficult and dangerous to store. Large volumes of H2 are currently made in refineries by reforming methane, CH4, into CO, CO2 and H2. This requires a natural gas fired furnace operating at 1475°F. It can also be made by inefficiently electrolyzing water but at atmospheric pressure followed by compression to store at high pressures. 3) Wind – works only when the wind is blowing so requires a fast start up backup generator. 4) Solar – works only when the sun shines (<50% of the time). It too requires a fast start backup since output can be as whimsical as a passing cloud. 5) Ethanol from biomass – could potentially work but needs some major development time. There are many other approaches out there but few have the mass implementation and capabilities of nuclear, coal, petroleum or hydroelectric. We should not stop looking but like the farmers in the first half of the last century, let’s keep a pair of horses around until this new fangled tractor is as reliable. The energy history of the world has been from low heating, value dirty fuels to cleaner high heating value fuels. That progression has been from wood to coal to oil to natural gas to nuclear. That progression will continue but forcing it by artificially raising the costs of existing fuels or by regulating them out of existence will ultimately hurt our economy and our future. We can best work towards these goals by ensuring we have a strong economy that is capable of generating the funds needed to develop new fuels and processes. So by all means, Drill Baby Drill until the alternative is cheaper.

• Jack MartinFebruary 21, 2012 - 10:30 pm

  Wooo! Terry..... some nice "light" reading. I'll be following this thread to see who stands against it. Meantime, throw your hat in the ring for Energy Secretary.

• JoniFebruary 21, 2012 - 10:32 pm

  @ Terry: the alternative will become cheaper when we have invested, researched and begun mass production of alternative energy sources. Just like the tech boom which has seen a rapid decrease in cost to consumers of products, due to competition and further advancements. Drill Baby Drill is archaic. All the major energy/oil companies have seen the light. Have you seen their new commercials touting clean/renewable energy? Do you believe that the profits and investor monies directed towards this goal are just chasing rainbows? Trust me, they see pots of gold.

• JoniFebruary 21, 2012 - 9:59 pm

  Bottom line...oil could very well be a finite resource. As it is, the cost for exporation is only increasing. We must have an alternative plan. Common sense tells us going in a direction that is less destructive to our environment is sensible. As I previously stated, companies and investors are already going in this direction. China is poised to become the world leader in alternative fuel solutions. It is not a matter of if we go in this direction...we are already heading there.

• TerryFebruary 21, 2012 - 11:03 pm

  Joni, you are talking about the Hubbert Curve. For as long as I have been watching it, the peak keeps getting moved into the future. That is because it is a static model that does not anticipate new finds and new oil recovery technology. For years, natural gas production has been declining with associated increases in prices. That has changed. Production is up, prices are down and we have a predicted 200 year supply. Oil production after years of decline in the US is actually increasing due to new methods of removal. Yes oil is a finite resource, but we still have a few decades before we need to replace it. I am not arguing against alternate fuels or conservation but I am arguing for a sensible transition that does not see squandered resources such as Solyndra and the many other wastes of tax payer money especially if we are borrowing the money from China. China is also building coal fired power plants as fast as possible. A satellite image of the pollution over China and India is as telling as the blackout in N. Korea. How is drilling for oil any more destructive of our environment than plowing thousands of square miles of land and fertilizing to grow corn to make ethanol? If we force the technology too early, we will pay more and end up delaying the goal. Don't buy Betamax, VHS is coming. During the depression, my great grandmother muttered while stuffing ears of corn into the stove to cook dinner because there was no money for coal. She muttered "We're going to pay for this." The next year was a crop failure. We will pay for burning food.

• TerryFebruary 21, 2012 - 11:18 pm

  Joni, the oil companies will do what ever they need to do to keep the politicians and environmentalists off their backs. Yes they will research alternatives and they may invest in a few demonstration plants but they will not go full in until it is economical or unless some fool in the government makes it profitable for them. But then that is the wrong thing to do since the product generated will not be economical to us the taxpayer and the consumer. We pay a hidden price (taxes) as well as at the pump. They get the pot of gold and we are the suckers. Keep the government out of it and let the market decide. If drilling is cheaper in the meantime, drill. If we artificially raise the price of energy for some lofty futuristic goal, all we will accomplish is to drive more business to China and India. Once gone, it will be very difficult to get it back. We already have a huge tax, regulatory and labor disadvantage. Don't make it worse by forcing alternative energy before its time.

• Jack MartinFebruary 22, 2012 - 5:57 pm

  LOL.... Terry made more than 20 specific points, with calculations, rationale and historical context. And you think your personal "view" on the future of renewable energy somehow rebuffs all that he said? You've shown yourself unqualified to debate this point with Terry.

• TerryFebruary 22, 2012 - 10:02 pm

  Lest everyone think I am just a right wing teabagger spouting the party line, I would like to tell a short first person true story. I was having lunch with friends in the cafeteria of a large petroleum company’s research facilities on the east coast. At the table was a young scientist who described how he was going to make amorphous flexible silicon solar cells that would generate electricity in an economical and commercially viable fashion. This was exciting and very worthwhile research. The petroleum company funding the research had great hopes and certainly had the means to commercialize any developments. In fact, the oil company was rolling in cash and had investments in coal, copper, solar thermal, office machines, semiconductors and many other ventures. Other advanced research projects going on at the time in the labs were laser isotope separation, fusion target pellets and laser systems, semiconductors, catalysts, and a host of petroleum and chemical related projects. We spent close to one hour discussing the potential and benefits of solar electricity. Success with all this talent and resources seemed assured. Well that was 32 years ago. The young scientist is now a professor at UC Berkeley. His solar cell project was a bust. And here we are today still chasing the commercial viability of solar cells without government subsidies. Hence you can understand my skepticism about alternative energy that needs just a little more push to be commercially viable. We have been researching and developing alternate forms of energy since the Carter administration, 35 years ago. How many have become commercial successes without government subsidies? Wind, solar, geothermal, ethanol, wave, hydrogen, …. are still only single digit percentages of our energy production. We have ignored the most viable source, nuclear since 1978. We are in the process of tearing down dams, a cheap, renewable resource. That leaves us with gas, coal and oil. We are regulating coal out of existence and discouraging oil production. Yet we continue to believe in the dream that alternate energy is just around the corner and will magically fill our tanks in ten years with not only the technology to create the fuels economically but the infrastructure to deliver them. One last comment to think about. The Chinese must be LOLing since we are borrowing money from them to research and subsidize alternate energy. Once we are ready for production, we need cheap labor and a locale with minimum regulations to produce the products. So the jobs go to China. As part of the deal, China insists that we share the technology with them through corporate partnerships and that we open research facilities in their country to further develop the products. Remember, they loaned us the money to create the technology, then insisted we share it with them along with the jobs and profits. And we still have to pay back the loans. What a sweet deal!

• JoniFebruary 22, 2012 - 10:55 pm

  @ Terry: Methinks you are in cahoots with the oil companies. Your cafeteria story taking place in a petroleum facility was riveting. Your extensive use of the English vocabulary..impressive! If I cared enough to spend my time researching, I have no doubt that the facts and data I could present to counter yours would be more than worthy and quite substantial..not to mention substantiated! I've had these "discussions" before and you are set in your thinking and party stance. I feel like this issue is just beating a dead horse. You are wrong. Period. BTW, what is the name of the professor at UC Berkeley? I happen know some people there.

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 6:49 am

  Joni, Typically new technology takes 10 to 15 years to become commercially viable. If it is not viable in that time, it is not likely to happen as there is something fundamentally wrong with the technology or the economics. You mentioned the semiconductor industry above. Look at the tremendous gains they have made over the last 35 years. We have seen nothing like that in alternative energy. The current solution is to artificially raise the cost of conventional energy or to subsidize alternatives so they are competitive. That is stupid as it drains us of much needed resources and wealth to tackle other issues. Open your eyes and take a hard look at the reality. Stop dreaming. Yes, I have 30+ years of association with the oil industry, 10 years as an scientist for a Fortune 1 oil company. Some may think that experience is pertinent to the issue. Shoot me if you must but stop drinking the koolaid of the left and start thinking for yourself.

• Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:37 am

  Oil producers have been getting government subsidies for a very long time.

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:32 pm

  About $2.5/yr and yes it should stop along with the much larger subsidies for alternatives.

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:32 pm

  Opps $2.5B

• JoniFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:40 pm

  @ Terry..WHAT is the name of the professor??? For the third time!!!

• Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:54 pm

  Get rid of all the tax (special) tax subsidies, write-offs, and exemptions for all forms of energy? I'd take that deal. However, $2.5B for oil producers' tax breaks sounds low.

• Alan ChalmersFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:56 am

  If all of the costs of oil were included in the price, then oil would not be considered to be "economically viable" either. Especially the vast costs, including environmental, plus monetary and life, of our military efforts around the world to keep the supply flowing. Although Terry flatly denies global warming, the scientific consensus says otherwise. All of those scientists are not liberal conspirators. Some of the most advanced research is coming out of Lawrence Livermore National Lab, for example. This is the place where they do the research necessary for all modern weaponry. They are not a bunch of hippies. I can tell you through personal experience that the staff there is 90% republican, but they are scientists, and facts are facts. Check it out yourself on their website. Terry is an old school oil man. He must deny climate change in order for his Tea Party ideology to hold up. Much of what he says is true, however. Solar and wind will never be our sole sources of energy (neither will US-sourced oil). Storage is the next big challenge. However, by developing alternative sources, we can vastly reduce our dependence on hostile nations. The military knows this, and this is why they are the number one purveyor of solar right now.

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 8:05 pm

  Alan, in mathematics one good counter example disproves a theory. There are more than enough holes in the AGW theory (i.e. man made warming) to discount it (see above). And yes it is still a theory based on mathematical models that have failed to predict anything. In the parlance of industry, these are unvalidated models that would not pass ASTM standards for custody transfer of fuels or other products. Professionally I am a physicist with specialization in infrared spectroscopy. I have published papers on the spectra of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. I understand the radiation physics involved. Science is not done by popular vote even if it is limited to fellow scientists. Economically, I have no axe to grind. Oil will out live me. The products I develop can and are used for ethanol production as well as for petroleum, chemical, pharmaceutical, and semiconductor production worldwide. The world has been warming since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. Warming is a natural phenomenon primarily driven by the sun. During the Medieval Warm Period, Europe thrived. Why would we not think this would again occur? Our best defense, if needed, against global warming is a strong economy that gives us the resource to counter the negative aspects. However, if we squander our resources now trying to reduce CO2 emissions, we will not have those resources to apply later when needed.

• JoniFebruary 23, 2012 - 9:12 am

  @ Terry: again...what was the name of that professor ?

• J. OthersideFebruary 23, 2012 - 8:19 am

  The descriptive phrase is "cradle to grave" costs, and thermodynamically speaking oil continues to win- for now. Even when you take out the speculative market cost contributions for any energy source on the near horizon, oil is still the nasty choice. Which is why production and potential inventories continue to rise even in the USA, and even (gasp!) under the current administration. And it will be our downfall sooner than later for many reasons already discussed. But the fact remains it is our energy source until a slam dunk alternative comes to market. Not just plastered on the headlines or churning in the development labs, it has to be commercially available to have the desired impact.

• Alan ChalmersFebruary 23, 2012 - 8:57 am

  Is that right, J? And in your cradle to GRAVE costs, how exactly are we pricing out 6358 dead servicemen in Iraq & Afghanistan, plus hundreds of thousands of wounded, plus the costs of deployment, plus the residual costs to society of caring for the permanently damaged people who return? Are these costs figured in your pricing model? Give me a break, you are so naive.

• J. OthersideFebruary 23, 2012 - 9:20 am

  Alan, sorry for my perceived naivety. The costs you refer to are indeed outragous, but how do you attribute them to the larger energy picture? And not to other sources outside of energy, such as political, religious, etc. As a naive engineer/scientist I cannot, as you churlishly pointed out.

• Alan ChalmersFebruary 23, 2012 - 9:35 am

  I forgive you. However, I, as a scientist/engineer, recognize that in the complex system of the world, one cannot cherry pick the data we wish to analyze. You have to look at all of the variables. Were it not for the oceans of oil under the middle east, we would not be in the mess we are in today over there. There are hostile religious and political entities the world over. But we choose to kill, destroy, and die in the middle east. Surely, even you understand why that is. Take all the costs of these misadventures and factor them into the price of oil rather than the national debt, and then how does your economic balance sheet work out? $20/gallon? More? And then there's all those inconvenient dead soldiers...

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:43 pm

  Alan, yes the loss of life and fortune securing the oil supplies in the ME is unfortunate and some of those costs should be factored into our energy costs. About 22% or our imported oil comes from the ME. That is about 10% (I don't have the exact figures) of our total oil usage. Surely we could increase domestic production along wind finding other sources of energy to reduce our dependence on ME to zero. That should have been one of the prime lessons learned by 9/11. I blame our domestic environmentalists as much as I blame the warmongers for this situation.

• Don BeatineFebruary 23, 2012 - 7:51 pm

  "unfortunate". Thanks for showing us who you are.

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 9:12 pm

  And what is that supposed to mean? It is unfortunate because of 35 years of misguided government policies or lack thereof that have left us in the position of dependence on the ME. If you want out of the ME, find a replacement for their oil.

• Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 23, 2012 - 10:04 pm

  Terry -- one thing that confuses me is if we import ME oil, refine it, then export the refined products to markets outside the US, why exactly do *we* need that oil?

• James E.February 23, 2012 - 10:10 pm

  Why do we need that oil? For oil company profit on the world market? It would be interesting to see what would happen if we stopped import on ME oil.

• Chris FletcherFebruary 23, 2012 - 10:36 am

  Sunpower's 250-megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch (CVSR) project is currently putting about 350 people to work in San Luis Obispo County, California. It has provided local job opportunities for skilled labor such as electricians, carpenters and iron workers to remain close to their families rather than traveling away from home in search of work. In addition to the jobs created by CVSR, the project is expected to: · Inject $315 million into the local economy in San Luis Obispo County, California · Generate enough clean, renewable power for about 100,000 homes · Protect and conserve more than 12,000 acres of land The US solar industry is estimated to employ more than 100,000 people today. The number of solar jobs has grown steadily for several years, while other industries have reduced their numbers. Here's a video about it- http://us.sunpowercorp.com/blogs/blog/2012/02/21/solar-is-creating-american-jobs-today/?elq_mid=1305&elq_cid=207731

• TerryFebruary 23, 2012 - 9:00 pm

  Chris, nice find. 350 jobs, $315M, 250 MW, 12,000 acres. Impressive. Now let's take a closer look: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all $1.6B in government subsidies, grants, tax breaks, etc. Panels manufactured in China (How much of the money was borrowed from China?). 50% higher electric costs than a conventional natural gas fired generator. No mention of what will supply energy at night or on cloudy days. Huge profits for Morgan Stanley, GE, Goldman Sachs, Google, NRG... “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” said David Crane, CEO of NRG. CA has mandated 33% electric generation from renewables by 2020. Hence, the premium contract price that PG&E is paying for the power. Where do you think PG&E will get their return from? I have already installed 50% CFLs. I routinely shut off all lights and appliances not in use. I have purchased only the most efficient appliances available. I guess I could start drying clothes on a line and using candles. Get government out of the commercial implementation and mandating of these technologies, all of them including oil. Let the market decide which technologies win.

• J. OthersideFebruary 25, 2012 - 8:30 pm

  Alarmingly, and sadly, Alan, it is not that much. If it were perhaps the Carter doctrine may not have lasted through the last 30 odd years. The numbers are: 7.0 billion barrels of oil consumed annually in the US. About 3.5 billion barrels imported. Assume $80/barrel, $280 billion annual cost, $2.8 trillion over 10 years. Estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over 10 years: $1.3 trillion Estimated total cost of health care and disability compensation to veterans of the current wars $1 trillion over the next 40 years. Total estimated cost (bringing 40 years into 10 years): $2.3 trillion Less than $1/barrel of imported oil. Converting that into gasoline at 25%/barrel, less than 25 cents/gallon. These numbers are astronomical. What energy pigs we all are. Now, a very un-engineering point is what is the worth of the human life expended for the Carter doctrine? In my opinion, one death is unacceptable. So are the 32,000 annual US traffic fatalities for the sake of getting from point A to point B as quickly and cheaply as possible. Oink, oink.

• Robert ZFebruary 25, 2012 - 9:38 pm

  J otherside, and of course the rest of you, what do youdrive and how much do you drive? Just curious....Lets also consider petroleum in plastics and other uses in your daily life....just a question so??? I have an old chevy and an old Toyota I also am an vaid mountain biker....what say all you whiners?