"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Here's the hitch - there is no way to tax sun power. In short we
won't see this technology put into production because the power from
the sun can't be taxed. In short, there is no "use" tax on free power.


Don't put it past the politicians to figure out a way. Maybe a surcharge
on your local or state taxes if you happen to be in a "high sunshine" area.

Eisboch

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:28:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading
about?

Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.

We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems to
me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.

Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
The stupidest thing I keep hearing is talk about tapping the strategic
reserves. Can't get more absolutely lame than talking about doing
that.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Building nukes as quickly
as possible and concentrating on converting most commuter cars to
batteries will be the fastest way to knock the edge off oil
dependency. NG and oil fired heating can be converted when the
electricity costs get there. Lots of work for the HVAC industry, and
real good for copper prices.
Just need the will to do it. Leadership.
Oil fuel will used mostly for boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:28:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been reading
about?
Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.

We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems to
me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.

Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
The stupidest thing I keep hearing is talk about tapping the strategic
reserves. Can't get more absolutely lame than talking about doing
that.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Building nukes as quickly
as possible and concentrating on converting most commuter cars to
batteries will be the fastest way to knock the edge off oil
dependency. NG and oil fired heating can be converted when the
electricity costs get there. Lots of work for the HVAC industry, and
real good for copper prices.
Just need the will to do it. Leadership.
Oil fuel will used mostly for boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.

--Vic


The entire McCain "energy plan" was handed to McCain intact by the oil
industry. It's a plan to make more money for the oil industry.

Last November, McCain said:

""I will oppose any tax breaks or good deals for the gas and oil
industry also."

--John McCain at a town hall meeting in Rindge, NH, 11/18/07


For American Progress, "The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170
billion a year in tax cuts to corporations, including some corporations
that are very large and profitable. Just one of the proposals-cutting
the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent-would cut taxes for
five largest U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year." [Center for
American Progress, 3/27/08]

McCain Voted Against Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil. In 2005, McCain
voted against legislation calling on the President to submit a plan to
reduce foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent. [Senate Roll Call Vote
#140, 6/16/05]

In 2005, McCain Voted Against a Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies At
Least Twice. McCain voted against a measure that would have provided an
income tax rebate to Americans by taxing enormous oil company profits
temporarily on an sale of crude above $40 a barrel. [S 2020, Vote #331,
11/17/05; S 2020, Vote # 341, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las
Vegas Review-Journal, 11/18/05; Environment and Energy Daily¸ 11/18/05]

McCain Voted Against Taxing Oil Companies To Provide $100 Rebate To
Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to impose a
temporary tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. The
funds would be used to provide every taxpayer with a $100 non-refundable
tax credit for 2005 for each person in their household. The amendment
failed 33-65. [S 2020, Vote #341, 11/17/05]

McCain Voted Against Temporarily Taxing Oil Companies to Finance Tax
Rebate For Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to
would impose a temporary 50 percent tax on oil company profits from the
sale of crude oil. Funds collected from the tax would be used to provide
a consumer tax credit for petroleum products. The amendment failed
35-64. [S 2020, Vote #331, 11/17/05]
Offshore Drilling

McCain Now: McCain Called For Lifting The Off Shore Drilling Moratorium.
During a press availability in Arlington Virginia, John McCain called
for a lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. McCain
said, "I think that's a subject of negotiation and discussion. But right
now, as you know there's a moratorium. And those moratorium, in my view,
moratoria, have to be lifted. And they have to be lifted so that states
can make those decisions. I'm not dictating to the states that they
drill or they engage in oil exploration. I am saying that the moratoria
should be lifted so they have the opportunity to do so. And by the way,
I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives if the states, in
the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift
those moratoria." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

* Houston Chronicle: McCain Announced Drilling Stance To "Make
Amends With Texas Energy Producers." The Houston Chronicle Reported,
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to make amends
with Texas energy producers who did not support him during the 2008 GOP
primary season, said Monday he wants to end a federal moratorium on
offshore drilling and create "additional incentives" for states to
approve new exploration ventures." [Houston Chronicle, 6/17/08]

McCain Said Coasts "Should Be Open To Exploration and Exploitation."
John McCain said, "So I do believe that there are places in the world,
as I said, that we should not drill. But I certainly think there are
areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and
exploitation. And I hope that we can take the first step, by lifting the
moratoria in order to do so." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

McCain Then: He Opposed Off-Shore Drilling At Least Three Times, and
Twice Supported Florida Efforts To Prevent Drilling Off Their Coasts.

* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2005, McCain voted
for an amendment that would strike language instructing the Interior
Department to conduct a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental
Shelf oil and natural gas resources. The amendment failed 44-52. [H.R.
6, Vote #143, 6/21/2005]

* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2003, McCain voted
against a provision requiring a survey and inventory of possible
off-shore oil and natural gas deposits by the Secretary of the Interior.
He voted for an amendment striking the provision. The amendment failed
45-53. [S. 14, Vote #221, 6/12/2003]

* McCain Voted for One-Year Moratorium on Oil and Gas Exploration
in North Aleutian Basin. In 1989, McCain voted for a bill making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other purposes.
The bill contained a total of $956.4 million for the Bureau of Land
Management of which $442.1 million is for management of lands and
resources; $535.5 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill
also imposed a one-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration and
development in the North Aleutian Basin and ensured that the Department
of the Interior will continue its assessment of damage from the Exxon
Valdex oil spill through September 30, 1990. The bill also contained
$1.5 billion for the Department of Energy, which includes $422.1 million
for the fossil energy research program; $192.1 million for the Naval
Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; $413.3 million for energy
conservation. The bill passed 91-6. [H.R. 2788, Vote #241, 10/7/1989]

McSame As Bush: Bush Administration Called For End To Off Shore Drilling
Ban. The New York Times reported, "The Bush administration proposed on
Monday leasing out millions of acres along the coasts of Alaska and
Virginia to oil and gas drillers, a move that would end a longstanding
ban on drilling in those environmentally sensitive areas. ... ‘The outer
continental shelf is a vital source of domestic oil and natural gas for
America, especially in light of sharply rising energy prices,' said Dirk
Kempthorne, secretary of the interior." [New York Times, 5/1/07]
Renewable Energy

McCain Flip Flopped On Ethanol

FLIP: McCain Said Ethanol "Has Absolutely, Under No Circumstances, Any
Value Whatsoever." According to Roll Call, "John McCain, R-Ariz., called
ethanol "a product that we have created a market for which has
absolutely, under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn
producers and Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses."
[Roll Call, 5/2/04]

* FLOP: McCain Said Ethanol "Ought To Be Something That Ought To Be
Carefully Examined." According to the Des Moines Register, McCain
"indicate[d] a slight softening of his earlier opposition to the
corn-based alternative fuel, which he said in the past was too costly to
produce." McCain "who once described ethanol as ‘good for neither the
environment nor the consumer,' said that rising oil costs make the
alternative fuel worthy of another look.'" "McCain emphasized ... that
his opposition to subsidies hasn't changed, and said that economics, not
politics, explains his revised position. ‘I think it ought to be
something that ought to be carefully examined' and researched, he
added." [Des Moines Register, 4/13/06, 4/14/06]




The reality is, McCain is as much in the pocket of big oil as Bush.

As soon as McCain announced his (their) energy plan, contributions began
to roll in from the oil industry.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:28:26 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0400, D.Duck wrote:


Now if we could only get some drilling going in the Gulf or on the
mainland. What's with this Ballken field in Montana/ND I've been
reading
about?
Do you mean the Bakken Formation that was discovered in 1951? Lots of
oil there, but with current technology most of it will stay there.

We are not going to drill our way out of this. In this country, oil
production peaked in the early '70s. We are still the third largest oil
producing country, yet we have to import more than 1/2 our oil. Seems
to me, there is a hell of a lot more we can do on the conservation side,
than on the producing side.

Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.
The stupidest thing I keep hearing is talk about tapping the strategic
reserves. Can't get more absolutely lame than talking about doing
that.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Building nukes as quickly
as possible and concentrating on converting most commuter cars to
batteries will be the fastest way to knock the edge off oil
dependency. NG and oil fired heating can be converted when the
electricity costs get there. Lots of work for the HVAC industry, and
real good for copper prices.
Just need the will to do it. Leadership.
Oil fuel will used mostly for boats. Navy and recreational.
ep. --Vic


The entire McCain "energy plan" was handed to McCain intact by the oil
industry. It's a plan to make more money for the oil industry.

Last November, McCain said:

""I will oppose any tax breaks or good deals for the gas and oil industry
also."

--John McCain at a town hall meeting in Rindge, NH, 11/18/07


For American Progress, "The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170
billion a year in tax cuts to corporations, including some corporations
that are very large and profitable. Just one of the proposals-cutting the
corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent-would cut taxes for five
largest U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year." [Center for American
Progress, 3/27/08]

McCain Voted Against Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil. In 2005, McCain
voted against legislation calling on the President to submit a plan to
reduce foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent. [Senate Roll Call Vote
#140, 6/16/05]

In 2005, McCain Voted Against a Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies At
Least Twice. McCain voted against a measure that would have provided an
income tax rebate to Americans by taxing enormous oil company profits
temporarily on an sale of crude above $40 a barrel. [S 2020, Vote #331,
11/17/05; S 2020, Vote # 341, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las
Vegas Review-Journal, 11/18/05; Environment and Energy Daily¸ 11/18/05]

McCain Voted Against Taxing Oil Companies To Provide $100 Rebate To
Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to impose a
temporary tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. The funds
would be used to provide every taxpayer with a $100 non-refundable tax
credit for 2005 for each person in their household. The amendment failed
33-65. [S 2020, Vote #341, 11/17/05]

McCain Voted Against Temporarily Taxing Oil Companies to Finance Tax
Rebate For Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to would
impose a temporary 50 percent tax on oil company profits from the sale of
crude oil. Funds collected from the tax would be used to provide a
consumer tax credit for petroleum products. The amendment failed 35-64. [S
2020, Vote #331, 11/17/05]
Offshore Drilling

McCain Now: McCain Called For Lifting The Off Shore Drilling Moratorium.
During a press availability in Arlington Virginia, John McCain called for
a lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. McCain said, "I
think that's a subject of negotiation and discussion. But right now, as
you know there's a moratorium. And those moratorium, in my view,
moratoria, have to be lifted. And they have to be lifted so that states
can make those decisions. I'm not dictating to the states that they drill
or they engage in oil exploration. I am saying that the moratoria should
be lifted so they have the opportunity to do so. And by the way, I would
also like to see perhaps additional incentives if the states, in the form
of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those
moratoria." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

* Houston Chronicle: McCain Announced Drilling Stance To "Make Amends
With Texas Energy Producers." The Houston Chronicle Reported, "Republican
presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to make amends with Texas
energy producers who did not support him during the 2008 GOP primary
season, said Monday he wants to end a federal moratorium on offshore
drilling and create "additional incentives" for states to approve new
exploration ventures." [Houston Chronicle, 6/17/08]

McCain Said Coasts "Should Be Open To Exploration and Exploitation." John
McCain said, "So I do believe that there are places in the world, as I
said, that we should not drill. But I certainly think there are areas off
our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation. And I hope
that we can take the first step, by lifting the moratoria in order to do
so." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

McCain Then: He Opposed Off-Shore Drilling At Least Three Times, and Twice
Supported Florida Efforts To Prevent Drilling Off Their Coasts.

* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2005, McCain voted for
an amendment that would strike language instructing the Interior
Department to conduct a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf
oil and natural gas resources. The amendment failed 44-52. [H.R. 6, Vote
#143, 6/21/2005]

* McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2003, McCain voted
against a provision requiring a survey and inventory of possible off-shore
oil and natural gas deposits by the Secretary of the Interior. He voted
for an amendment striking the provision. The amendment failed 45-53. [S.
14, Vote #221, 6/12/2003]

* McCain Voted for One-Year Moratorium on Oil and Gas Exploration in
North Aleutian Basin. In 1989, McCain voted for a bill making
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other purposes. The
bill contained a total of $956.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management
of which $442.1 million is for management of lands and resources; $535.5
million for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill also imposed a
one-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in the
North Aleutian Basin and ensured that the Department of the Interior will
continue its assessment of damage from the Exxon Valdex oil spill through
September 30, 1990. The bill also contained $1.5 billion for the
Department of Energy, which includes $422.1 million for the fossil energy
research program; $192.1 million for the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves; $413.3 million for energy conservation. The bill passed 91-6.
[H.R. 2788, Vote #241, 10/7/1989]

McSame As Bush: Bush Administration Called For End To Off Shore Drilling
Ban. The New York Times reported, "The Bush administration proposed on
Monday leasing out millions of acres along the coasts of Alaska and
Virginia to oil and gas drillers, a move that would end a longstanding ban
on drilling in those environmentally sensitive areas. ... ‘The outer
continental shelf is a vital source of domestic oil and natural gas for
America, especially in light of sharply rising energy prices,' said Dirk
Kempthorne, secretary of the interior." [New York Times, 5/1/07]
Renewable Energy

McCain Flip Flopped On Ethanol

FLIP: McCain Said Ethanol "Has Absolutely, Under No Circumstances, Any
Value Whatsoever." According to Roll Call, "John McCain, R-Ariz., called
ethanol "a product that we have created a market for which has absolutely,
under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn producers and
Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses." [Roll Call,
5/2/04]

* FLOP: McCain Said Ethanol "Ought To Be Something That Ought To Be
Carefully Examined." According to the Des Moines Register, McCain
"indicate[d] a slight softening of his earlier opposition to the
corn-based alternative fuel, which he said in the past was too costly to
produce." McCain "who once described ethanol as ‘good for neither the
environment nor the consumer,' said that rising oil costs make the
alternative fuel worthy of another look.'" "McCain emphasized ... that his
opposition to subsidies hasn't changed, and said that economics, not
politics, explains his revised position. ‘I think it ought to be something
that ought to be carefully examined' and researched, he added." [Des
Moines Register, 4/13/06, 4/14/06]




The reality is, McCain is as much in the pocket of big oil as Bush.

As soon as McCain announced his (their) energy plan, contributions began
to roll in from the oil industry.

Evil Exxon. 11 billion in profits. 32 billion paid in taxes. Sounds more
like the taxers are the evil ones.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:57:19 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Just need the will to do it. Leadership. Oil fuel will used mostly for
boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.

--Vic

There are those that would argue oil is too valuable to use as fuel. Look
around you, medicines, fertilizers, plastics, etc. As it stands, we
can't get through the day without oil products.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:23:43 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:57:19 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Just need the will to do it. Leadership. Oil fuel will used mostly for
boats. Navy and recreational. Yep.

--Vic

There are those that would argue oil is too valuable to use as fuel. Look
around you, medicines, fertilizers, plastics, etc. As it stands, we
can't get through the day without oil products.

I watched that History or Discovery Channel episode called "Oil"
a bit back and they mentioned there are bio substitutes for just about
everything that comes from oil. They didn't go into much detail.
I still wonder if anybody knows the answer to my more "drilling"
question, so I'll pose it again:
Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market?
Are "American" oil companies drilling here going to sell only to
American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me.
Doesn't seem like drilling more here will affect the world oil supply
significantly enough to lower prices as world demand increases.
Devil in the details, and I never hear anybody explaining how
drilling more here will have real effect in price.
Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.

This isn't a "political" question per se, but one more related to
actual local and global economics as they are currently practiced.

--Vic

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:32:40 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

Here's what puzzles me when I hear talk about "drilling our own oil."
Isn't oil price set by the world market? Are "American" oil companies
drilling here going to sell only to American consumers?
That sounds like nationalization to me. Doesn't seem like drilling more
here will affect the world oil supply significantly enough to lower
prices as world demand increases. Devil in the details, and I never hear
anybody explaining how drilling more here will have real effect in
price. Does the gov get so much per barrel on the leases? Etc, etc.

This isn't a "political" question per se, but one more related to actual
local and global economics as they are currently practiced.

--Vic

Interesting question, and I don't have the answer, but a few facts. We
are still the world's third largest producer of oil, at 8.3 million
barrels per day (2005 est.) of which we export 1 million bbl/day. The
problem is we are also the biggest pigs on the planet. We consume 20 bbl/
day.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html

If our production increases, the world's production increases, thereby,
lowering the world's prices. There is no reason to think all of the oil
produced here, would stay here.