Want To Fight Back On High Gas Prices?

[Dan:]

biking is just not feasible for many people and in many areas.

[Troutfisher]

Here's an alternative:  how about instead of depending on foreign oil in other countries, why can't we go to Alaska and drill?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html

[squid]

Here's an alternative: how about instead of depending on foreign oil in other countries, why can't we go to Alaska and drill?

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html

What?  And give Americans jobs?  Too easy.  Better to farm them out...... : :-?

[drakedeming]

i'd rather see 10$ a gallon then drill in alaska (one of the most pristine places on earth)

sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise it's just my opinion

[llPa1nll]

Over 30 years ago a lot of us, fresh out of college boys back then, tried to convince both the US Government and the Seven Sisters (the Major OIL Companies) to begin the serious development of hydrogen as the next come on fuel to gasoline. It would save lives because it does not explode in fuel tanks as gasoline does. The exhaust, hydrogen burns combining with oxygen to equal water with only that part converted into energy "lost" as a result. This was back in 1971, so over the years if their had been steady development with the profits of oil, gas, and tax dollars placed into the project this nation today would not have the gas, and oil dependency problems we face. However money, greed, cheep oil, and as usually no will or leadership in Congress needed to pass the necessary legislation to proactively deal with a coming problem so once again problems have come home to bite the average citizen because it has not been important enough for Congress to deal with. They have bigger more important things on their minds than to solve the problems of the average person on the street. What other reason could there be because these problems have been known since I was 20 years old and I am now 57. I spent over 30 years in and around oil refining and if a dumb guy like me could see the problem then why could not all the self proclaimed geniuses in Congress and those that have occupied the White House not have authored legislative fixes over the last 30 plus years????

Makes one wonder doesn't it?

It does doesnt it. Make you wonder. I saw a PBS special on Hydrogen power. Very interesting stuff. The only exhaust/emission form this type of energy being water. How greener than that can you get? The fuel if I remember right was nearly next to nothing price wise to charge/fill a car. The funny thing is that if Hydrogen is so great why exactly are they pushing these Hybrid cars on us that still use gasoline? They are priced so high youd have to drive it practically till the wheels fall off to see any kind of savings on your initial purchase. It doesnt seem to fully solve the problem. I mean the technology is out there its just not being utilized. The other thing is that there are virtually no moving parts in a hydrogen powered car. That should be a savings for us consumers that replacing parts wouldnt be as much of an issue. If the powers that be actually cared what was going on we would of had this option by now. Instead for the last 30yrs or so we have seen the powers that be do almost nothing because of special interests and lobbyists. I mean if we can figure out how send a man to the moon within 10 yrs, I think we can figure this out. It does make me think that nothing on a national level will happen until someone figures out a way to make it more profitable to do something else. Its all about money. Sad thing to me is Iceland is doing it why cant we? I also recall that Brazil doesnt import hardly any foreign oil. Back in the 70s they signed a resolution to get their country off foreign oil. Well now they grow sugar cane that handles pretty much all their power needs. So if the US is so great and powerful, why cant we make this happen? Here is a little video on it from

.

[Troutfisher]

i'd rather see 10$ a gallon then drill in alaska (one of the most pristine places on earth)

sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise it's just my opinion

The drilling in Alaska would presumably take place in an area that would not affect any of the wildlife.

[drakedeming]

i'd rather see 10$ a gallon then drill in alaska (one of the most pristine places on earth)

sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise it's just my opinion

The drilling in Alaska would presumably take place in an area that would not affect any of the wildlife.

thats fine then as long as they can keep it clean, cause as soon as they start pumping oil appears in the enviroment.

[llPa1nll]

i'd rather see 10$ a gallon then drill in alaska (one of the most pristine places on earth)

sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise it's just my opinion

The drilling in Alaska would presumably take place in an area that would not affect any of the wildlife.

If you believe that I got ocean front property in Az to sell you too. Plus oil isnt a sustainable resource its going to run out at some point in time. Granted we are still going to need some sort of home heating fuel for people in the northern climates of the country. I think if we could change out automobile fuels from fossil fuels to a more sustainable/renewable fuel we would be better off in the long run. Just my thoughts...

[zara spook]

You know I never really realized how much the price has gone up since I started driving ten years ago.  I mean I'v noticed the increase in the price at the pump but I guess over the years I've rationalized it by looking across the marketplace and realizing LIFE n general is more expensive now than ten years ago.  However, after visiting OPEC's website and doing some very simple math, I've deduced that the basket price for a barrell of crude has gone up $38.52 from $18.68 a barrell to $57.20 a barrell...when did the US jump on the "Please screw us over wagon"?  I've got to say I was mildly upset at the price of gas I am now however completely furious...The time to leave Iraq is NOW!!!!!  Let them take care of themselves, Lord knows they have enough of our money to do it with. > > >

[PaparockArk]

I remember when gasoline was 35 cents a gallon for premium. :-?

[Troutfisher]

Papa Rock  ;D

...The time to leave Iraq is NOW!!!!!  

We should finish the job, but we should tell the people of Iraq that in return from freeing them from the grip of a dictator and establishing a country, the oil from their country should come here, NOT other countries.

[Long Mike]

With all due respect to those who know absolutely nothing about drilling for oil in Alaska, and its affect on the wildlife therein, I would cordially invite you to research the affect on wildlife that discoveries on the North Slope and the resultant Aleyska pipeline have had for the last two decades.  Better yet, I would invite you to use Google Earth to find as many polluted and scarred areas as you possibly can.  Trust me, you will not find any.

For some reason, it seems that the great majority of opponents to drilling in Alaska live in New England. which must import every drop of oil/fuel it uses.  Because many New Englanders HAVE NO CLUE about how the oil industry actually operates, this somehow empowers some to become very opinionated about the actual affects of drilling on the environment and to wildlife.  This saddens me.

I have worked in the oil industry for over thirty years, and all over the world.  The foot-print of a drilling site on land is minuscule, maybe 200' by 200.'  Even a giant offshore platform has an above water footprint of about the same dimensions.  How is that going to affect wildlife in general?  Answer:  They will simply go around it.

Take a good, hard look at the Gulf Coast.  Drilling and production has been going on for fifty years, both onshore and offshore.  Prudent measures minimize the possibility of pollution.  A man can go fishing anywhere he wishes and will have the opportunity to catch any species he wants, without fear of contaminated fish or waters.

Anyone who opposes drilling in Alaska is so ignorant about the oil industry that it is almost laughable - and that's why it saddens me.  There are simply too many of you.  

[Troutfisher]

That was a very good and well informed post.  Kudos!  

[WhiteMike1018]

Just filled my tank up today!

Should last me a good 2-3 weeks.

My car is a 4 cylincder, saves gas like crazy.

[Guest avid]

Drilling in Alaska is something I oppose and here are my reasons.

1.  It just prolongs the inevitable.  We have to face up to the fact that oil is a finite resource.  There are viable alternative fuels and we must deidicate ourselves to aggresively developing them. (See my 'conspiracy theory' post)

2.  I remember all the promises, and "facts" and arguments promoting the shipping of crude.  Then the Exxon Valdez accident happened.  It was an environmental disaster with ramifications still in evidence.

Where are the Louisiana boys?  How much environmental damage did your state suffer?  Stone crab anyone?  You don't need to add butter, they come pre oiled.

3.  with terrorism the buzz word and everyone waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak.  

How on earth are we going to defend thousands of miles of pipelines from damage, either accidental or intentional.

5.  It is so typically American to point to forgeiners for our woes.  We rant at the Arabs for the price of fuel but the Hummers and the ridiculously overpowered bass boats, keep rolling off the production lines and we all drool over them (me too).  But with a real commitment to fuel efficient vehicles, mass tansit, and other conservation measures we could substantially reduce our consumption.

4.  And here is the main reason.  I love the wildnerness.  There is so little left.  The thought of placing this pristine envioronment at risk so we can continue with our disgracefully fuel guzzling habits should not be premitted.  

We will only get serious about alternative energy sources when it becomes clear that the determination to move away from oil is steadfast.  I sincerely believe when that day arrives the 'energy companies' will have a way to keep things moving.

[Catt]

Y'all seen the big bass I caught Thursday right, well that's in the middle of oil country. An Exxon Valdez can happen with any fuel, what do you think would happen in the event of a hydrogen explosion? If it's a fuel that can be burned in a combustion engine then the chances of a mishap will always be present. There is a better chance of drilling in Alaska with out incident than finding a safe alternative any time soon.

[Long Mike]

Avid, I agree with everything you said, with one exception. The "Wildlife Refuge"  where proposed drilling is to take place consists of nothing more than miles and miles and miles of swampland (when it's not frozen)  It has the same topography as the Prudhoe Bay area.  Yes, it is pristine, just the way Prudhoe Bay still is.  I will grant that a few small spills have occurred, but they have occurred on such a small scale that the overall ecosystem was not affected in the slightest.  Mind you, I am not talking about the Valdez incident.  That catastrophe took place a thousand miles from from the drill site.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the foot print of a drill site is very small, and any damage from a spill is very much localized.

[PaparockArk]

An Exxon Valdez can happen with any fuel, what do you think would happen in the event of a hydrogen explosion? If it's a fuel that can be burned in a combustion engine then the chances of a mishap will always be present. There is a better chance of drilling in Alaska with out incident than finding a safe alternative any time soon.

There are many myths about hydrogen as a fuel and its' safety. Educate yourself so you know the facts.

http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm

http://www.usfcc.com/resources/govreports.html

What about hydrogen safety?

There are many myths about hydrogen which have recently been dispelled. Two years ago, a study of the Hindenburg incident found that it was not the hydrogen that was the cause of the accident. Safety tests performed by Ford Motor Company for the U.S. Department of Energy have found that the technologies being tested for storing hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle are actually SAFER than storage of gasoline.

The following quotes are taken from "Direct-Hydrogen-Fueled Proton-Exchange-Membrane Fuel Cell System for Transportation Applications: Hydrogen Vehicle Safety Report" by Ford Motor Company, May 1997: Pg 17-18: "Addison Bain, a retired NASA safety expert, has conducted a comprehensive investigation of the Hindenburg incident, searching through archives in both the U.S. and in Germany, interviewing the few remaining witnesses including surviving crew members, and even securing the services of NASA scientists to analyze fragments of the Hindenburg saved as souvenirs. . . Bain's most startling hypothesis is that hydrogen may not have played a major role in the fire. He cites several witnesses that saw what could have been 'St. Elmos fire," -- lightning bolts attracted to the surface of the giant airship. His thorough analysis of the mechanical structure of the dirigible shows that any hydrogen leaking from the inner bags would have been vented to the outside. He shows from historical records and actual analysis of remaining fragments of the ship's gas bags that the construction was either cellulose acetate or cellulose nitrate. Both are flammable. . . In addition, aluminum flakes were added to the covering material to help reflect sunlight to keep the gas bags cool. But Bain points out that cellulose nitrate and metal chips are also the ingredients of rocket fuel, politely suggesting that it might not be wise to paint airships with rocket fuel! His final slide shows a photograph of another burning airship, engulfed in flames much like the Hindenburg. But with one major difference: this airship was filled with inert helium, not hydrogen, suggesting that the Hindenburg fire could very well have been started by lightning igniting highly flammable fabric on the airship. While hydrogen clearly added to the conflagration, the Hindenburg might have burned even if it had been filled with helium. In retrospect, the Hindenburg was a high riisk venture, since the 190,000 standard cubic meters (6.7 million SCF) of hydrogen was carried in a set of rubberized cloth bags, with little protection from outside disturbances. The energy content of the hydrogen was equivalent to about 1,900 gigajoules (GJ), or 19 GJ per passenger. A modern hydrogen-powered vehicle would be much safer, with energy stored in crash-tested tanks instead of flimsy cloth bags. A fuel cell electric vehicle would carry about 0.8 GJ of hydrogen energy for a four-passenger car, or 0.2 GJ per passenger. The hydrogen would be stored in one or more fiber wrapped composite tanks that could survive 50-mph head-on collisions, engulfment by a diesel fuel fire, and pressures at least 2.25 times design pressure without rupture. The message is clear: a modern fuel cell electric vehicle would have 2300 times less hydrogen energy content than the Hindenburg, or 100 times less per passenger, and the hydrogen container would be immeasurably stronger. In effect, there is no comparison between the safety aspects of the Hindenburg and those of a fuel cell vehicle."

With regards to the probability of a rupture of the hydrogen storage tank, Pg 30: "Each tank is tested at 1.5 times its rated operating pressure, and samples from each lot are pressure tested to failure. Each tank design must be qualified at 2.25 times normal operating pressure. Each class of tank is also subjected to gunfire and must not explode but leak only through the bullet-hole." (Try doing that to a gasoline tank!)

Pg xi: "In a collision in open spaces, a safety-engineered hydrogen FCV shound have less potential hazard than either a natural gas vehicle or a gasoline vehicle due to four factors. First, carbon fiber wrapped composite storage tanks (the leading high pressure storage tank material due to its low weight) are able to withstand greater impacts than the vehicle itself without rupture, thereby minimizing the risks of a large release of hydrogen as a result of a collision. Second, hydrogen, if released, disperses much faster than gasoline due to much greater buoyancy, reducing the risks of a post-collision fire. Third, the FCV will carry 60% less total energy than a gasoline or natural gas vehicle, resulting in less potential hazard should it ignite. Finally, the design recommended here includes an inertially activated switch in each FCV that, in the event of a collision, will simultaneously shut off the flow of hydrogen via a slenoid valve or valves, and will cut electrical power from the battery."

Pg. xii: "Hydrogen has 52 times greater buoyancy and 12.2 times greater diffusion coefficient than gasoline. Thys hydrogen will disperse much more quickly than gasoline or natural gas. Similarly, hydrogen's lower flammability limit is four times greater than that of gasoline."

What is the U.S. government doing now?

The U.S. Government owns and operates 30 fuel cell cogeneration units, the world's largest fleet of fuel cells.

The government helps in other ways. At least five cabinet-level Departments participate in fuel cell research and demonstration programs, investing more than $100 million per year. The U.S. Department of Energy spends the most: about $50 million on research in molten carbonate and solid oxide fuel cells for stationary power and more than $30 million on transportation applications.

The Department of Transportation also maintains a fuel cell bus research program. The Commerce Department supports fuel cells for premium ower applications and the Environmental Protection Agency has a program to facilitate the use of fuel cells at landfills and wastewater treatment plants.

The U.S. goverhment's Climate Change Fuel Cell Program provides grants of $1,000/kilowatt to purchasers of fuel cell power plants. The 'buydown' program has so far awarded $18.8 million in assistance for the purchase of 94 fuel cell units.

Fuel cell vehicles could transport American troops on the battlefield of the future, and could serve as a vital source of auxiliary power in combat. That's because fuel cells are quiet, flexible, and operate at low temperature, making them ideal for use in "stealth" vehicles. Fuel cells are also being developed for submarines, surface ships and a variety of other military uses.

Why should the government support fuel cell development?

Fuel cells can provide major engironmental, energy and economic benefits that advance critical national goals. Development and optimization of energy technologies has always been a partnership between government and the private sector.

Other power technologies have enjoyed considerable support in the past, including tax credits for natural gas drilling, military support for gas turbine technology, support for solar power research, nuclear power research and coal cleanup technologies, among many other programs.

What are other countries doing?

The U.S. faces fierce competition from other countries. Canada, Japan and Germany are aggressively promoting fuel cell development with tax credits, low-interest loans and grants to support early urchases and drive down costs

Toyota has been investing heavily in fuel cell vehicle research, showcasing a methanol-fueled fuel cell version of its RAV4 sport-utility vehicle in Fall 1997. DiamlerChrysler recently invested CAN$450 million in cash into Canada's Ballard Power Systems for development of fuel cell vehicles. DaimlerChrysler has already unveiled four fuel cell vehicles, the latest being a hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicle based on the company's A-class car. The company has a fuel cell bus.

Ballard also has fuel cell buses running both in Canada, and on the streets of Chicago. Almost all other automakers researhcing fuel cell cars are incorporating Ballard fuel cell engines. After receiving $30 million from the Government of Canada, Ballard has teamed up with the subsidiary of a New Jersey electric company to commercialize stationary fuel cell cogeneration units.

What more should be done to spur development of fuel cells?

The U.S. government should take three steps to help commercialize fuel cells:

1. Major increases are needed in research and development budgets of the Departments of Energy and Transportation, and elsewhere.

2. The federal government should also take the lead to purchase early power units and vehicles.

3. The government should continue and expand the program to help "buy down" the cost of early units installed around the country.

To put costs into perspective, we pay more than $5 billion for imported oil each month. A small fraction of that amount could fully commercialize fuel cells within five years and create tens of thousands of jobs.

[frogtog]

Well it's a know fact that all of use Americans are just talkers. So come

May 15th I'am not buying any gas. Will it do any good, probbly not but at least

I tryed. :-?

[Catt]

Y'all want to do some thing to help our dependence on foreign oil then go to the polls and vote some of these old career politicians out of office.

That is the only solution  

[Guest avid]

Avid, I agree with everything you said, with one exception. The "Wildlife Refuge" where proposed drilling is to take place consists of nothing more than miles and miles and miles of swampland (when it's not frozen) It has the same topography as the Prudhoe Bay area. Yes, it is pristine, just the way Prudhoe Bay still is. I will grant that a few small spills have occurred, but they have occurred on such a small scale that the overall ecosystem was not affected in the slightest. Mind you, I am not talking about the Valdez incident. That catastrophe took place a thousand miles from from the drill site. As I mentioned in a previous post, the foot print of a drill site is very small, and any damage from a spill is very much localized.

I suppose your right about the acutal impact surrounding the drilling site Mike.  It's just that I can't help but think that if we as a nation made the commitment to developing alternative fuels and backed it up with the necessary investment than we would be there by now.

I remember as I'm sure you do the shock that America went through when OPEC embargoed oil shipments to us back in the early 70's.  There was all this talk about eliminating dependence on forgein oil, conserving the resource, and developing alternative fuels.

That was 35 years ago! But we never followed through on it.

And so here we are.

We're going to have get serious about this eventually.

Why not now?

[Long Mike]

Avid, you are preaching to the choir.  Like I said, I agree with you.  The exploitation of ANWAR, in the scheme of things, is only a short-term solution.  What really gets my hackles up are the folks who oppose development of ANWAR because of the potential dangers to wildlife and the environment.  I would call them tree huggers, except there is no tree for 500 miles in any direction.  OK, I'm finished with my tirade.  Let's move on.

[llPa1nll]

With all due respect to those who know absolutely nothing about drilling for oil in Alaska, and its affect on the wildlife therein, I would cordially invite you to research the affect on wildlife that discoveries on the North Slope and the resultant Aleyska pipeline have had for the last two decades.  Better yet, I would invite you to use Google Earth to find as many polluted and scarred areas as you possibly can.  Trust me, you will not find any.

For some reason, it seems that the great majority of opponents to drilling in Alaska live in New England. which must import every drop of oil/fuel it uses.  Because many New Englanders HAVE NO CLUE about how the oil industry actually operates, this somehow empowers some to become very opinionated about the actual affects of drilling on the environment and to wildlife.  This saddens me.

I have worked in the oil industry for over thirty years, and all over the world.  The foot-print of a drilling site on land is minuscule, maybe 200' by 200.'  Even a giant offshore platform has an above water footprint of about the same dimensions.  How is that going to affect wildlife in general?  Answer:  They will simply go around it.

Take a good, hard look at the Gulf Coast.  Drilling and production has been going on for fifty years, both onshore and offshore.  Prudent measures minimize the possibility of pollution.  A man can go fishing anywhere he wishes and will have the opportunity to catch any species he wants, without fear of contaminated fish or waters.

Anyone who opposes drilling in Alaska is so ignorant about the oil industry that it is almost laughable - and that's why it saddens me.  There are simply too many of you.  

Ok so Im guessing this was directed at me? Call me crazy but I agree with Avid on this.

Drilling in Alaska is something I oppose and here are my reasons.

1.  It just prolongs the inevitable.  We have to face up to the fact that oil is a finite resource.  There are viable alternative fuels and we must deidicate ourselves to aggresively developing them. (See my 'conspiracy theory' post)

2.  I remember all the promises, and "facts" and arguments promoting the shipping of crude.  Then the Exxon Valdez accident happened.  It was an environmental disaster with ramifications still in evidence.

Where are the Louisiana boys?  How much environmental damage did your state suffer?  Stone crab anyone?  You don't need to add butter, they come pre oiled.

3.  with terrorism the buzz word and everyone waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak.  

How on earth are we going to defend thousands of miles of pipelines from damage, either accidental or intentional.

5.  It is so typically American to point to forgeiners for our woes.  We rant at the Arabs for the price of fuel but the Hummers and the ridiculously overpowered bass boats, keep rolling off the production lines and we all drool over them (me too).  But with a real commitment to fuel efficient vehicles, mass tansit, and other conservation measures we could substantially reduce our consumption.  

4.  And here is the main reason.  I love the wildnerness.  There is so little left.  The thought of placing this pristine envioronment at risk so we can continue with our disgracefully fuel guzzling habits should not be premitted.  

We will only get serious about alternative energy sources when it becomes clear that the determination to move away from oil is steadfast.  I sincerely believe when that day arrives the 'energy companies' will have a way to keep things moving.

If we agree that Oil is a non sustainable resource. Why go there and prolong our dependency on Oil? This will solve nothing, its only a temporary fix, try to think big picture. We need to develop a new type of fuel to power our cars and heat our homes period. Granted I am sure your correct about the dimensions of an oil drilling platform. Thats not the point. Its putting that pristine environment that was set aside to be protected at risk. So we can indulge ourselves a few more years on Oil?

I think the powers that be need to take a serious step forward and provide a direction for this country to become not so dependent on Oil as a resource. If that makes me a tree hugger so be it, I think it shows some forward thinking and some responsibility on my part.

[Ghost Rider]

Yall sound like a bunch of old hens in here talking about the gas prices.... Dude you can not fix it with a gas out....it will not change a thing.... A few members hit the nail on the head with plants closing down but also think about this China and Inida are not riding bikes any more their traiding up to cars.

Cali and a few other states have really screwed up the market also becasue of there green thumbs politics. So if you dont like the price you got to pay.. get a Hybrid car, truck and boat .

[frogtog]

Well I did my part today. I stayed at the shop and paid my guys to just clean equipment. None of my trucks on the road today. I know I'am just one little

speck in a billon but I save about 65 gallons of gas today. What if everybody

had done the same thing, wonder what the out come would have been. :-/