Nationalization of oil industry

^^^
The truth that this about politics and appearances is in the "rule or ruin" approach of leftists. it is not about what really works, or Maxine Waters, dumber than a post, nor Steny Hoyer nor anyone else would be saying we stop doing A as fast as possible because B will be working sometime, but we don't know when. That is a suicide pact.

What can you cite to me that qualifies Maxie Waters or any Democrat (or Republican) to run a refinery?

There is absolutely no proof that government can do a better job than capitalist industry. The Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, China...the list goes on.

The list of dead also goes on well past Nazi Germany when government "owns" all "the means of production". When that occurs, you either are useful to the state or dead. Do you want Maxie Waters setting your work rules, deciding which companies survive or don't? I have seen alot of the woman. A good socialist and panderer, she is useless otherwise. And she is very intent on expanding government authority as far as she can get it done. This expansion is to her advantage, since she can then sell more favors to the highest bidder.

If politicians could not enact narrow law that benefits a particular industry or interest group, do you think the industry or group would pay attention to them? Think about it. If you have nothing to sell, nobody cares or will pay you. You want to take the money out of politics? Then reduce the reach of polticians. The less they control, the fewer will come to find benefit from manipulating that control. This is so simple it evades most minds, IMO.

Maybe it is like the picture of the pious anti-death penalty judge with portraits of Che and Obama on his wall in the background. Che was Castro's preferred summary executioner, killing more people in three years (maybe less) than have been executed in the US in the last 10. The irony would be hilarious if it weren't so sick.

As to what Obama plans when he ascends, I just dunno. But I think "hope" is not going to be the right theme.

The point of this digression is to highlight that leftists say A and do B (and they are not the only ones, either). Marx's dictum, that "the people are the revolution or they are nothing", is the best summary of what happens to common people who get in the way of the revolution, or leftist steps toward that goal.

I think the political class we have established in this country is incompetent, with notable exceptions, on both sides of the aisle. I would like to toss the lot of them (with previously state exceptions) into the sea and start over.

I will stand for election as King, and serve 4 years only.
 
Last edited:
What are the numbers in terms of gallons of radioactive waste produced by coal plants in comparison to nuclear plants? How is it stored?
One estimate put it at 88 pounds of radioisotopes per day from a 1000MWe coal-fired power plant. It's not "stored" - it's either dumped up the smokestack or into the fly-ash pile near to the plant to be washed into a nearby river or down into the water table by the next rain shower.

Scientific American: "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste"

It's a minuscule fraction of the total background radiation that we are all exposed to every year, and poses no meaningful health risk - the irony is that a nuclear power plant poses even less radiation risk. And when you compare other pollutants, there's no comparison between zero-emissions nuclear power plants and the millions of tons per year of sulfur and nitrous oxides poured into the air from a coal plant.
 
If you actually read that article it pretty much says that solar could be just as cheap and productive as traditional fossil fuel power sources within a decade (8 years) at the current rate of development. If we started putting more into it now I am betting that time frame could be cut in half at the very least.
So what are people who have to drive to their minimum-wage jobs every day supposed to do for the next 4-8 years? They can't run their cars on Congress' hot air.
 
The solar/wind discussion is a separate one than oil. Until there exists a solar tractor trailer, freight train, aircraft, or cargo ship the alternative energy alternative is out of context to the vitality of oil to our economy.

There are yet to be implemented uses for solar in electricity generation and yes that technology is reaching viability but won"t replace petroleum as the economic fuel. There are emerging some residential uses and some general lighting/receptacle voltage power commercial applications for such power but solar won't be the go to power source until several more leaps are made in the technology.

The actual topic however has the Democrats, at least the HOUSE Democrats, intent to socialize the oil industry and this seems to be the very reason they are happy to see prices rise to such traumatizing levels. Let the problem reach crisis and then 'save the day' by stepping in and taking over.

The alternative energy thing seems to be the telling thing that these folks really don't understand how things work.

How many things do they want to socialize now?
Do they always think that the Federal Government is the answer?
 
Algae-derived biodiesel has very exciting prospects - the main problem at the moment is that most diesel vehicles that an average person would want are illegal thanks to environmental regulations.

The Honda Accord Diesel is supposed to become available in 2009, and gets 52 mpg. How many tens of billions of gallons of gasoline has been wasted over the years that this kind of fuel efficiency has been blocked from the US market, I wonder?
 
Algae-derived biodiesel has very exciting prospects - the main problem at the moment is that most diesel vehicles that an average person would want are illegal thanks to environmental regulations.

The Honda Accord Diesel is supposed to become available in 2009, and gets 52 mpg. How many tens of billions of gallons of gasoline has been wasted over the years that this kind of fuel efficiency has been blocked from the US market, I wonder?

Right. And do you have any idea what the relative costs are?

Do you understand that US refineries use technology aimed at optimizing gasoline production, whereas European refineries use different technology that optimizes producing diesel? And the costs of conversion? Who do you think will pay the bill?

Oh, and there has to be a conspiracy to keep diesel cars off the road, right?

And you admit your own solution is illegal under current environmental regs?

Then what are you arguing for? And who set the regulations that created the situation that "...tens of billions of gallons of gasoline has been wasted over the years that this kind of fuel efficiency has been blocked from the US market, I wonder?" Well, start with Pelosi, her predecessors...the very people some think we should hand off management of refineries to. They failed then. You think they will do better? Have another drink, mate, your BAC is well over the limit as it is.

Seriously, I think you need to do some homework on the issues.
 
No need to take such an insulting tone, mate.

Diesel cars are not available here in the US due to air quality regulations and high-sulfur diesel fuel - I didn't say anything at all about a "conspiracy," short-sightedness and government meddling in the market produces bad enough results as it is. The only reason the 2009 Accord iCTDI can be sold here in the US is that it finally can meet all 50 state emission requirements. I wouldn't put it past them to tighten those requirements shortly thereafter, but that's another thread.
 
For the love of Pete, try the facts for once. There are 104 operating reactors in the United States. Some job by the "eco-terrorists" over the years, eh?

And how many starts of new plants have occurred in the past 30 years?

For the last 10 years there have been laws on the books subsidizing and practically begging industry to build more. They don't right now for a simple reason: they're not economical when compared to carbon-based plants. Their cost per kWh is too high. That may change if the price of carbon goes up, but it hasn't yet.

All the litigation the enviros brought to nuclear plant construction drove costs up.
I remember many years of delays for various plants.
The lawsuits start immediately with the selection of a site for a plant.
NIMBY runs rampant.

There are all sorts of new designs intended to prevent ANY loss of coolant or coolant pumping issues.
 
To add that there are several states that in effect ban diesel passenger vehicles. I know NY, MA, CT, CA and their are a few others. It would be very hard to for those states to reverse the laws, until their is a major technology leap to make diesel cleaner.
 
wow just more proof that we need to hurry up and get past the baby boom generation.......they have no clue how markets work.
so sad that we are hearing this langauge in America
sadder still that the limited govt types are treated like freaks...even in the GOP
 
And how many starts of new plants have occurred in the past 30 years?

While I know this interferes with talk-radio myth, it is a simple, stone-cold fact that nuclear plants aren't economical right now. They simply will not be built until their generation cost per kWh is equal to or lower than carbon-based (read: coal) plants.

It is because of this that for 30 years Congress and Presidents have signed on to various subsidies -- from sharing development costs to relieving of liability -- to no avail.

You can, for instance, read the current issue of The Economist for a nice summary of the state of nuclear power and where it's headed, both economically and technologically.
 
Ever hear of the Nuclear Energy Liability Property Insurance Association ? I made a lot of money in the 70's and 80's selling electrical construction fittings to Duke Power and CP&L. The last was Shearon Harris. It came in at about $ 9 billion. I don't remember how much over estimate, but several times.

Not sure what one would cost today, but it would probably be at least $25 billion. Of course, once you get it built the cost to operate is peanuts.
 
While I know this interferes with talk-radio myth, it is a simple, stone-cold fact that nuclear plants aren't economical right now. They simply will not be built until their generation cost per kWh is equal to or lower than carbon-based (read: coal) plants.

And even the Economist failed to account for WHY the costs of nuclear plants have been driven so high.
It started almost as soon as they began building them.
Lawsuits, more lawsuits, a few restrictions, a few more lawsuits, and pretty soon the cost has been driven well beyond all reason.
 
The cost to generate electricity by solar is $5.50 to $7.00 per kWh, compared to $3.02 to $3.82 for fossil fuel. By 2015, it is projected to cross over, and reach parity. That is 8 years from now. This is an optimistic study, others have set the cross over point 15-20 years out. If we started drilling our oil reserves now, we could be producing in 3-5 years, maybe less. So, why wait? Start drilling now, and when solar is cost effective, we can begin switching to it.

That would be a good argument except we already broke that substantially and wind power has just been broken at a $1 per kWh. Perhaps you need to update your stuff.

As for drilling we expect to see a drop on the price of oil of about 10 cents per barrel in the next 10-25 years, if they ever bothered to drill the new contracts. Especially since oil companies don't bother drilling the other 10000 sites they have licenses to drill and they aren't going to waste billions to drill up half a year's worth of supply that is then under US law has to be sold on the open world market and we're likely to see non of it anyway.
 
Start now. Then in 5 years it's done. WE become the #1 oil producer AGAIN. We have oil reserves that exceed the middle eastern nations combined. It's a tough sell that becoming the #1 producer of oil won't change the price. Good luck with that one. I doubt that gas (or diesel) is $4.oo US in Saudi Arabia.....

As for solar and wind.....press on. No problem with that AT ALL. It's NOT an either or scenario. We don't have to devistate an economy to get that work done. Untill there are solar (or all electric) tractor trailers, freight trains, aircraft, and cargo ships the economy will remain petroleum dependent.

And the actual topic is that the Democrats that are putting out the drill where there MIGHT be oil and hold back where there IS KNOWN to be oil are stating publicly their intent to socialize the oil industry. Now are they going to wait untill that happens to free this country's oil reserves and become the #1 producer of oil? Is THAT what's going on? Do they have OPEC power in their control on their dream sheet?
 
I am a little late here but I will say this...

After a couple years with a gov't managed oil industry you would see desire for gov't run health care go away!;)
 
Limeyfellow -

Go read the article I quoted this from. It is dated June 18, 2008. You did not give a source for your numbers. Did you make them up?
 
As for drilling we expect to see a drop on the price of oil of about 10 cents per barrel in the next 10-25 years, if they ever bothered to drill the new contracts.
The Saudis simply announcing a meeting to discuss oil production increases is enough to drop the price $4 per barrel overnight. If the US made a serious, permanent commitment to increasing domestic oil production, it would have a serious impact on the price of oil before even a single drop was pumped.
 
Given that the lesses

are currently not drilling on ~50% of the permits that they already have, what makes anyone think that they'd drill on the new leases and permits that are being proposed?

You want new permits? Fine. First fully exploit the (publicly owned) resources we've already given you access to, then come ask us for more.

We, the People, own this stuff. You want it? Show us a real benefit, and pay a fair market price for it. Oh, and make sure that we benefit from your use of our resources.

We're the sellers, the oil industry are the buyers. We hold all the cards. Whatever deal we make will be in our best interest, not yours. Deal with it.

Or don't. Someone else will.

Capitalism rules.

--Shannon

--Shannon
 
Back
Top