The cost of Oil?

nate53 · Jul 25, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71HAHe3_2dk

Here is a link to a trailer of a new film about biofuels and oil, I have seen the film and it made me think about alot of different things that are all associated with oil and what it is really costing us. I was hoping to get the whole video posted but no such luck. Comments about biofuels and oil?

knabe · Jul 25, 2011

liberals check
oil bad check
sundance check
dramatic music behind position they are against check.
happy music behind position supported check.
spiritual without religion check
harmony argument without rebuttal check
subsidy check.
never question authority check
freedom without being free check
facts without facts check
film is devoid of facts check
political agenda check
inconvenient truth II check
movie is made on celluloid check
no energy production at night check
fluctuating energy production check
raise taxes on bad energy check
on and on.

soylent green is the ultimate green answer.

knabe · Jul 25, 2011

here's your government in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBu6Tpvq_9w

perhaps we can screen embryo's for violence genes and abort them.

your DNA is the property of the state.

knabe · Jul 25, 2011

here's our dear leader wishing he could bypass congress.

http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-boehner-to-give-dueling-addresses-20110725

and the crowd chants yes you can. essentially saying they want a dictator.

nate53 · Jul 25, 2011

knabe said:
liberals check - I may have seen one or two but once every blue moon they might come up with something useful?
oil bad check - it's not that is bad it's that we are way to dependent on it, how much money do we spend a day on oil imports that we will never see again, oh wait we will see it again when China, Saudi Arabia or whomever comes back and loans it back to us with interest or buys a piece of this country just to charge us a toll. on and on and on........................................
sundance check
dramatic music behind position they are against check. - obviously
happy music behind position supported check. - obviously
spiritual without religion check - religion is overated, God is underated!
harmony argument without rebuttal check - does harmony need rebuttal?
subsidy check. - oil doesn't and has never gotten any money have they, their just like the auto and big banks totally unsubsidized right
never question authority check - what authority
freedom without being free check - freedom has never been free
facts without facts check
film is devoid of facts check - really what does it take to qualify to be a fact?
political agenda check - off course there is an agenda ( lets stop paying the people and countries that hate us, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezeuala, to name a few)
inconvenient truth II check
movie is made on celluloid check
no energy production at night check -
fluctuating energy production check - don't we have that already oh wait let's just write another check we got the money, and then lets send it out of country to finance some real extremist - check
raise taxes on bad energy check - that's a good idea we need some revenue to pay for all the overseas necessities!
on and on. - that's what got us into this on and on and on................................................................................

soylent green is the ultimate green answer.

have you even seen the film? ;D

nate53 · Jul 25, 2011

knabe said:
here's our dear leader wishing he could bypass congress.

http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-boehner-to-give-dueling-addresses-20110725

and the crowd chants yes you can. essentially saying they want a dictator.

I am not an Obama fan and did not vote for him in 08 and will not vote for him in 2012!

As far as the blood samples being taken without consent. Every parent own's all of their kids blood until their 18 or what. What's the problem with a sample of blood being taken and tested, are they not testing and trying to learn about stuff that will help us and our kids? I didn't see anything in the video about them actually doing test on the actual kids, only a sample of blood to do test on. So yes I would give consent for them to take a small blood sample if it could possibly save someone's life someday.

knabe · Jul 25, 2011

nate53 said:
have you even seen the film? ;D

no. it's clearly an emotional film, so there's really no reason to see it if one is searching for facts.

knabe · Jul 25, 2011

nate53 said:
So yes I would give consent for them to take a small blood sample if it could possibly save someone's life someday.

the question isn't whether you would give consent, it's whether you would force people who don't want to give consent to give blood.

as is typical with both political spectrum's, they are both about selective choice and forcing those who don't agree with them to not have a choice.

nate53 · Jul 26, 2011

knabe said:
nate53 said:

have you even seen the film? ;D

Click to expand...

no. it's clearly an emotional film, so there's really no reason to see it if one is searching for facts.

Yes emotions can be misleading and quite frankly irrelevant to certain situations, but in all honesty the majority of the population is very susceptible to their emotions. If you find something that they can relate to, you have a window to get your message across, whereas without emotion or feeling connected in some way to the topic there is little chance of making a measurable difference. There are plenty of facts in the film and some history as well. Henry Ford was a big believer in ethanol- alcohol fuel even after he was forced to stop making cars to run on it. Ethanol's energy rating is positive or negative, depends who you listen to and which facts you deem factual, but the fact is ethanol is a homegrown fuel, the farmers of this country grow the feedstock. Yes the ethanol industry is subsidized do a degree just like everyother industry today. All that money the gov. has been spending on farm programs and crop subsidies has pretty much stopped since ethanol came on to the scene. Pre ethanol corn averaged $1.50 -$3.00 per bushell and the gov. would basically give farmers money so they wouldn't go out of business. With ethanol corn has been anywhere from $4.00 - $7.80 per bushell, so in other words no gov. payments. Corn ethanol can not possibly take the place of gas but we have to start somewhere and the ethanol industry has made leaps and bounds as far as effeciencey over the past 10 years. <rock>

Emotions can be misleading, figures don't lie, but liers figure.

knabe · Jul 26, 2011

end subsidies and see where the facts lie.

henry ford famously made parts wear out and was a supporter of germany.

on the other hand, he paid his employees better than most.

on the other hand, he designed parts to wear out, seeking out which parts were lasting and making them out of inferior metal.

there is nothing wrong with letting people go out of business.

if you end subsidies, land prices will go down and one won't need such large machinery and then you might have a town.

subsidies ultimately benefit artificial, unsustainable and inefficient consolidation.

ethanol has been one of the least inefficient industries in the last 10 years by overproducing processing plants where product must be taken to the plant rather than processed in the field. the government paid too much too fast choosing an infrastructure that was unsustainable. it is also extremely inefficient by requiring massive upsetting of the markets for grain, artificial raising of land prices etc. the more we subsidize, the harder we are going to fall. government simply extracts too much of a percentage of the pie with too little in return and subsidizes based on favors rather than efficiency, a recipe for disaster. then, the government hides the mess by even more payoffs, fixing the books and an endless stream of deception. government simply does not belong in markets other than to have simple rules and enforcement of fair play. subsidies are not fair play as not everyone has equal access to them. they are simply evil.

nate53 · Jul 26, 2011

If I can give a friend in this country $3.00 for an item, I deffinittely will not be giving $1.00 to my known enemy out of this country for the same product. Just an example
Right now this isn't even much of a option with oil, yes some is in Texas, Alaska, and various other states but considering all that we consume the oil we consume from this country isn't a huge piece of the pie.
subsidies - for the ethanol industry was initially given so the industry could develop and compete a little bit against oil
oil has massive infrastructure across the planet and was subsidized at the beginning and still being subsidized today, ( mainly were giving the dog a bone and hoping it does what we want, kinda like us and Saudi Arabia, they are being paid to be our friends. Most of the terrorist on 9-11 were Saudi's our friends). The fact is pretty much everything is subsidized from that fuel you pump in your car, your car, roads, infrastructure in every way, food, homes, aviation, schools (elementary, highschool, universities), etc.................. If they were all ended today there would be a loud crash, where would everyone be when the dust settled I do not know but things would deffenittely be different! :-\ Rescently read about San Fransisco's new bridge and how the steel sections of the bridge are being made in China and then will be shipped clear over here to be asembled, the reason given was by getting the spans from China it would save the city hundreds of millions of dollars. The only solution to this countries financial problems is to stop spending so much out of this country, IMO.
Knabe good discussing stuff with you, I tell you what you get California on the straight and narrow and I'll be a big believer, get them fixed and every other state will follow, just like on everything else. Good Luck!

knabe · Jul 26, 2011

nate53 said:
If I can give a friend in this country $3.00 for an item, I deffinittely will not be giving $1.00 to my known enemy out of this country for the same product. Just an example not a good one as the prices are not correct. also, i will gladly pay them right now rather than pump ours as they will run out.
Right now this isn't even much of a option with oil, yes some is in Texas, Alaska, and various other states but considering all that we consume the oil we consume from this country isn't a huge piece of the pie. not true. shale is plentiful, but fracking has problems. we also don't drill of our coast, but china does.
subsidies - for the ethanol industry was initially given so the industry could develop and compete a little bit against oil ethanol gets 3x the subsidy oil does and it will only go massively up under democrats.http://www.issues.org/27.1/

oil has massive infrastructure across the planet read titan by chernow about rockefeller, the government didn't do it and it wasn't subsidized from the beginning and was subsidized at the beginning and still being subsidized today, ( mainly were giving the dog a bone and hoping it does what we want, kinda like us and Saudi Arabia, they are being paid to be our friends. Most of the terrorist on 9-11 were Saudi's our friends). The fact is pretty much everything is subsidized which i am clearly against any subsidy from that fuel you pump in your car, your car, roads, infrastructure in every way, food, homes, aviation, schools (elementary, highschool, universities), etc.................. If they were all ended today there would be a loud crash not true, you would phase it in, give the market predictability which it has little of due to continually changing regulation, where would everyone be when the dust settled I do not know but things would deffenittely be different! good, they would be weaned :-\ Rescently read about San Fransisco's new bridge and how the steel sections of the bridge are being made in China and then will be shipped clear over here to be asembled, the reason given was by getting the spans from China it would save the city hundreds of millions of dollars.unions? how about inspections, even with the high rejection rate, they can still compete due to our union protections and regulations The only solution to this countries financial problems is to stop spending so much out of this country, IMO. that doesn't work. we need to export more than we import and quit disguising the opposite with printing money.
Knabe good discussing stuff with you, I tell you what you get California on the straight and narrow and I'll be a big believer, get them fixed and every other state will follow, just like on everything else. Good Luck! we can't wait for someone else, everyone needs to wean themselves from subsidies. subsidies are for research, not market manipulation.

Okotoks · Jul 26, 2011

The USA is a huge net importer of oil and the country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world shares the longest unprotected border in the world with the US.
There are Cities and States in the USA advocating banning the use of oil produced in the oil sand projects in Canada because it is dirty. (Ignoring the huge change in technology and environmental policies, the oil spills in the Gulf and the fact that many of the biggest oil producers like Russia's oil production make the oil spills and pollution of North American oil production look pristine)
The idea of producing ethanol from by-products made way more sense than the production from corn.
Ethanol plants were highly subsidized to get them into operation.
The fertilizer run off from ethanol produced corn is causing huge environmental issues in river run off in the US.
Hundreds of thousands of people are on the brink of starvation in the drought stricken area in the horn of Africa.
Just a few facts that when you put them together make you wonder how smart we really are!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301625.html

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-oil-reserves-countries-map.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/oil-producers-exporters-t_n_826564.html#s244330&title=1_Russia

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/20/f-africa-famine-topix.html

nate53 · Jul 26, 2011

www.poet.com
I guess the reasoning behind corn ethanol initially was hey corn is cheap and homegrown. We are invested in two plants that are about 50 miles from us. Our thought was hey if corn is cheap hopefully the plant will make money and if corn is high we will make money on the corn, we would be growing corn wether there is ethanol plants or not. I think corn ethanol has pretty much maxed out at least for the moment but that is hardly a reason to throw the existing facilities and jobs under the bus that would be a real waste. I don't think there needs to be any more corn ethanol plants, cut their subsidies I think they can make it on their own now, they have already done away with the blender credit which was actually going to the oil companies blending it. Take away the existing ethanol facilities and where would we be, corn prices would plummet we would be dumping grains into other markets again and forcing their producers out of business, cattle, hog, chicken, poultry prices, bean prices, wheat, hay, land prices would also plummet, interest rates would suddenly sky rocket because there would be so many loan defaults it wouldn't be funny. Gas wouldn't be any cheaper, cars would not cost less, there would be no less people starving, etc................

Okotoks thanks for posting I agree with most of what you posted, the fertilizer run off has been a issue for years and years and their is ground around here that was in the CRP program is no longer and it should never have been taken out, although that program would probally be considered a subsidy, so maybe that ground should just be pasture or somethng else. The oil reserves in Canada,

is another of the many reasons the U.S. should have a close relationship with you all.

Knabe, exporting would and is helping, ag exports are at all time highs, but it's kind of a two way street, we buy from them they buy from us, if it gets lopsided which it is now and has been for awhile the one side gets a little upset.

knabe · Jul 26, 2011

nate53 said:
Take away the existing ethanol facilities and where would we be, corn prices would plummet we would be dumping grains into other markets again and forcing their producers out of business, cattle, hog, chicken, poultry prices, bean prices, wheat, hay, land prices would also plummet, interest rates would suddenly sky rocket because there would be so many loan defaults it wouldn't be funny. Gas wouldn't be any cheaper, cars would not cost less, there would be no less people starving, etc...

not true. why is everyone afraid of accurate pricing of goods and services.

all the things we are afraid of is made worse with subsidies, it's just that we are familiar with it.

if you remove the cost of government manipulating prices frees up massive resources to do other things besides provide guaranteed employment and lifetime benefits that the private sector does not enjoy. prices in general would be cheaper.

we have removed owner serviceability from just about any piece of equipment, generating massive amounts of waste.

design should allow for end user service rather than regulating against a spare parts industry to minimize our waste. we have engineered the bumpers on our cars to require body shop only repair, rather than simply replacing a bumper.

trucks could be designed with simple panel replacement, minimal electronics, etc, but for some reason, we have morphed ranch trucks into limousines requiring major service and troubleshooting dealer only infrastructure, all because of regulations which have lost sight of any cost of ownership reduction.

nate53 · Jul 26, 2011

we have removed owner serviceability from just about any piece of equipment, generating massive amounts of waste.

design should allow for end user service rather than regulating against a spare parts industry to minimize our waste. we have engineered the bumpers on our cars to require body shop only repair, rather than simply replacing a bumper.

trucks could be designed with simple panel replacement, minimal electronics, etc, but for some reason, we have morphed ranch trucks into limousines requiring major service and troubleshooting dealer only infrastructure, all because of regulations which have lost sight of any cost of ownership reduction.
[/quote]
Agree, but what would our dear friends at the EPA do?

knabe · Jul 26, 2011

nate53 said:
Agree, but what would our dear friends at the EPA do?

design trucks and try and sell them.

only they would need a massive subsidy and massive EPA exemptions for years.

how will solar and wind compensate for millions of electric vehicles on the road that need to be charged at night?

if we don't charge them at night, how about during the day when electricity demand is at it's peak and increasing the load on the grid causes brown outs? how will they get home? subsidized tow trucks?

knabe · Jul 28, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

of course the response will be that it's forcing it's way out and we are creating more heat than we ever thought and that the models actually underpredict global warming.

again, why aren't global warmists eating each other to save the planet?

knabe · Jul 28, 2011

liberals lie too? no way.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

i bet only studies supporting his premise get funding.

Documents provided by Ruch's group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings. they are going to base policy on four dead bears? which is simply anecdotal evidence at best and at worst fraud.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge which was zero, they didn't observe it, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

knabe · Jul 28, 2011

this is pretty funny and not in a funny way

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cataracts-hips-knees-and-tonsils-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html

Hip and knee replacements only being allowed where patients are in severe pain. Overweight patients will be made to lose weight before being considered for an operation.

i thought rationing couldn't happen.

The cost of Oil?

Help Support Steer Planet:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member