The presidential campaign and the price of oil have really sparked debate, or more aptly, conversation, on what the future track of this countries energy policy should be. Especially in the last month.
Republican candidate John McCain has stated he wants to run the whole gamut of energy use. Specifically he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants. Hell, lets just build one. This country has not built any in thirty years.
Democrat candidate Barrack Obama has told American automakers that if elected he will demand cars with higher gas mileage, which I think is great. Overall though he follows the same failed liberal track of demand cut backs on personal use and invest in alternative energy, wholly ignoring the gap between now and then.
In a previous post I spoke about coal shale and just recently it was found that we have more coal shale within our borders than all the available oil in Saudi Arabia. Put congress won't less us bring it up. Nor will congress allow us to drill in the 1002 Area of ANWAR, off the Pacific coast, off the Atlantic coast, off the gulf coast or in the most of the landlocked areas of the country.
I heard an interesting segment on the radio regarding oil drilling in the midwest. Most of these companies are small, private firms that drill a few dozen to a few hundred rigs at most. There were most active rigs in the late 1980's and early 1990's but when oil was only costing $10 dollars a barrel, it was not cost effective to pull up the oil and hundreds of rigs were capped shut. Congress will not allow these small firms to open these capped wells and begin pulling the crude up again, knowing that these are established sites and no wildcatting is necessary.
Why not open up oil rigs that can produce results today?
Of all the plans I have heard, the ones that make the most sense are the ones that set up incentives for a diversificaiton of all energy sources not simply focused on one or two that may bear fruit down the road. Also ones that make sense. The current trend for fuels tends to be ethanol, yet when it costs about $1.29 for $1.00 of ethanol fuel, that makes no sense.
Whatever road this country travels towards energy indepedence or foriegn energy marginalization, it must do so with realistic, un-hyped means. Solar, wind, keneitc, biofuels, coal shale, oil, nuclear, recycling, grain based, hydrogen; all need to be looked at for their true potential and allowed immediate clearance to market, the regulations are there to protect us but right now they hamper us in this cause.
Republican candidate John McCain has stated he wants to run the whole gamut of energy use. Specifically he wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants. Hell, lets just build one. This country has not built any in thirty years.
Democrat candidate Barrack Obama has told American automakers that if elected he will demand cars with higher gas mileage, which I think is great. Overall though he follows the same failed liberal track of demand cut backs on personal use and invest in alternative energy, wholly ignoring the gap between now and then.
In a previous post I spoke about coal shale and just recently it was found that we have more coal shale within our borders than all the available oil in Saudi Arabia. Put congress won't less us bring it up. Nor will congress allow us to drill in the 1002 Area of ANWAR, off the Pacific coast, off the Atlantic coast, off the gulf coast or in the most of the landlocked areas of the country.
I heard an interesting segment on the radio regarding oil drilling in the midwest. Most of these companies are small, private firms that drill a few dozen to a few hundred rigs at most. There were most active rigs in the late 1980's and early 1990's but when oil was only costing $10 dollars a barrel, it was not cost effective to pull up the oil and hundreds of rigs were capped shut. Congress will not allow these small firms to open these capped wells and begin pulling the crude up again, knowing that these are established sites and no wildcatting is necessary.
Why not open up oil rigs that can produce results today?
Of all the plans I have heard, the ones that make the most sense are the ones that set up incentives for a diversificaiton of all energy sources not simply focused on one or two that may bear fruit down the road. Also ones that make sense. The current trend for fuels tends to be ethanol, yet when it costs about $1.29 for $1.00 of ethanol fuel, that makes no sense.
Whatever road this country travels towards energy indepedence or foriegn energy marginalization, it must do so with realistic, un-hyped means. Solar, wind, keneitc, biofuels, coal shale, oil, nuclear, recycling, grain based, hydrogen; all need to be looked at for their true potential and allowed immediate clearance to market, the regulations are there to protect us but right now they hamper us in this cause.
