--- Chris Vaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An otherwise well-reasoned response but for the > unnecessary gratuitous > personal invective. --> Chris, remember, it is you who first used the word "whako". > The U.S. (and other nations) needs relief in oil > prices NOW - not in the > distant future through utopian fantasies such as > alternate energy, renewable > energy and other such esoteric schemes. Ethanol is --> Any attempts to initiate drilling now will not deliver results in another 10 years. Acting in panic mode to address a problem that was 10-20 years in the making will do nobody any good. The US economy is already responding with efficiency gains. In any case, the fundamental issue is not high oil prices, but a damaged financial system. Just do the numbers. The average fuel bill per family has increased from around $1500 per year to approx $3000 per year. Now consider the impact of asset deflation from the credit crisis. This loss in wealth is in the 10's of thousands of dollars per family.
--- Roland Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This reasoning is surpassed in illogic by Marlon who > has concluded > that the US Govt (he means the feds of course) must > spend less on the > already barest of social services that it provides > it's citizens, > among other things. --> Perhaps Roland loves dumping his money into taxes to support services he will never get. If he thinks this is logical, it is his choice. > 1. The Alberta Oil Sands extraction is only > profitable at oil prices > being in the 80 to 100 dollar range. (Someone please > tell him that > even a new Sands operation can produce oil at most > at 32/bbl while an > existing one does so at 22/bbl). --> I stand corrected- my figures were wrong- the figure is around $40. However my main point is the limited scalability of producing oil from these sources. Current production is around 1.2 million b/d and is supposed to scale up to 3m b/d by 2020 - assuming the high prices remain in play. Hence, even in the most ideal situation, one is looking at an increase of around 150K b/d. This is marginal. > 2. Left to itself, Silicon Valley can replace much > of the oil the US > needs (tell Bill Gates to come back to active > management.) --> As audacious as it sounds, yes, that is the intent of many entreprenuers in the valley. I suggest Roland read up on cellusoic ethanol, which is intended to replace fossil fuels. Inspite of the rough credit market, private equity investments in clean energy continue unabated - up over 50% from last year. Furthermore, this does not include investments made by existing publically traded companies in clean tech > Marlon's > hypotheses sounds like the Big Bad US Govt > accusations spouted by all > those nuts before they barricade themselves in > Quonset huts on big > Texas ranches and get massacred in shootouts with > the FBI. --> This is a real head scratcher. I believe Roland is alluding to the religious group known as the Branch Davidians who fought the FBI to death in 1993 in Waco, Tx. I dont understand how I could be linked to a group that was engaged in horrific child abuse. One may be surprised to know that there are millions in America who share my view. In fact until very recently, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was more successful in his fundraising efforts than all of his established rivals. There is real discontent about an overpowering Federal government in America. Marlon