The Duke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAasJZMRqTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bANON6KLlGE

I agree w/ you that it is high quality, but this is only after it is mixed w/ other high quality crude. These 2 links above, particularly the first one, deal directly w/ this issue. The second link deals w/ the cost of oil and displays some unconventional views re: this cost.

WhizWheel

Finally someone who understands the "under the radar" reason why oil prices are so high and why profits remain around the 10% level for oil companies. Am I a rah rah cheerleader for big oil? Absolutely not. The problem is people are intimidated by and don't understand how hedge fund managers manipulate markets, how derivatives work so they blame what the media feeds them. Why take the time to find out the real reason when you have the all knowing media telling you what to think?

deltabound

Another reason why this will only get worse:

Congress has once again refused to lift the ban on developing shale oil in Colorado and Utah. Predictably, it was the Democrats blocking it on party lines.

While I'm generally ambivalent about shale oil as a oil resource (dirty, water intensive, environmentally ugly), it nevertheless underscores the utter lack of leadership and direction at the federal level.

Republicans refuse to provide incentives for promising "green" or "clean" power (tax credits forsolar, wind, tidal generators, etc.); Democrats refuse to pass anything sensible like offshore drilling, ANWAR, or nuclear power plants. Both dump borrowed money into losers like corn-ethanol because it's popular in farming states.

And not a single Presidential candidate is even talking about any of this.

Kind of scary.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...le-moratorium/

ewrbasedpilot

Predictably we are paying outrageous "war/terror premiums" because of the republicans, right?

deltabound

I didn't mean that as a swipe at the Democrats, per se. I was trying to note that both political parties are beholden to their interest groups, and neither one of them appear to be able to pursue a rational, diversified, long term national energy approach.

In the spirit of "predictable" republicans acting like knuckleheads: they simply refuse to consider long term production tax credits for renewables (wind, solar). These are capital intensive structures that will very likely pay off over the long term, but creditors are wary about investing in them after the solar boom/bust of the 1970s. Long term tax credits would remove that barrier. The republicans, however, refuse to authorize anything beyond 2 year credits . . . yet the don't hesitate to dump subsidizes and tax credits on big oil.

Our current lack of an energy policy simply cannot continue. At current trends, the US will be on track to spend 8 TRILLION dollars on importing foreign oil over the next 10 years. Irrespective of who that money goes to, the fact is that this is a huge drain on our national economy. I suppose when the US was the dominant manufacturing country in the world this cost could be considered relative (spend on energy, but make profits based on how you use that energy), but this is clearly no longer the case.

It's not a democrat vs. republican issue. Neither party is seriously addressing this vital issue. That includes all current candidates for President, who don't have a clue about energy policies. GW has also been a disaster on this issue.

JetPiedmont

How do you feel about the Dems who voted for the war?

Would the authorization have passed without them?

Why did they vote for it?

de727ups

This thead has gone overly political. We don't allow political discussions at APC. See the TOS.