(06-01-2010 10:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With a tort liability cap of $75 million, having the resources probably won't be an issue. I buy my gas at Sam's Club or with my Kroger card whichever is cheaper. Anything not sold through BP stations will just be sold to other wholesalers. Boycotting BP stations causes more harm to the local franchisee than to BP.

Correct. Also, as soon as you move away from a BP/Chevron/Exxon etc., to a Speedway/Mapco/Kroger etc. the gas could come from any of these companies. One guy at Kroger said he'd never go to Exxon 'cause of the Valdez (ancient history to me) but what he didn't know was that this Kroger got its gas from Exxon.

My opinion on the whole thing FWIW (which isnt a whole lot) is that there is way to much finger pointing right now. Democrats blame George Bush and BP, Republicans blame Obama, BP blames Transocean, Transocean blames Haliburton, and all the while the dang thing is still leaking. Unfortunately, it seems that its more important to find out who to blame rather than how to fix the problem. I'm all for finding out who's at fault and holding them accountable, but lets worry with that problem once we've gotten this oil leak under control.

(06-02-2010 12:35 AM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  I'm all for finding out who's at fault and holding them accountable, but lets worry with that problem once we've gotten this oil leak under control.

:iagree:

I was in Gulf Shores for the memorial day holiday. As I watch the pod of Dolphins from my condo window, I actually shed tears thinking of their habitat dieing in a couple of weeks time.

MTSUSkyman

(06-01-2010 07:23 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  This issue affects several on here. Go ahead and post your opinions on this thread, im sure everyone has one.

this issue affects everyone on here....



Study: Oil headed for Atlantic Coast

That's horrible! The Florida reefs will soon be destroyed.

I've paid off my BP card and I'm cutting it up... Here is a Boycott BP facebook page for those who want to join: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/page...1198107726

The thing I'm worried about is... Yeah we boycott BP and MAYBE it goes under, but who's to say that another company won't have the same problem? We need to cut our dependence on fossil fuels, not just one company... Of course at the present, BP is destroying the Gulf and they have to be stopped.

What we need to do is use vegetables for a fuel source so the price of food goes up all over the planet and poor people in 3rd world countries starve...wait, we tried that. Ok...we could try cutting government subsidies and tax breaks to the oil companies and use that money to help develop an infrastructure for hybrid and electric cars quickly (if we waited on private enterprise, we would still be waiting on the interstate system, velcro, cell phones, computers, etc etc etc).

NT103
Oil Globs on Beach at Gulf Shores Friday.
Main Beach Closed to Swimming.

6 month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf? Thats the ticket.

Diesel makes sense. You can get a VW Jetta TDI and get basically the same MPG as a Prius for less money up front. You get a vehicle that carries a more stable fuel without the risk of a fireman being electrocuted trying to cut you out after a wreck. No reliance on batteries that are an environmental risk when discarded and an extremely reliable engine that should be good for 200,000 to 300,000 miles. Switching to diesel reduces the amount of oil needed. If one-third of US gas burning passenger vehicles are switched to diesel the savings in oil needed is equal to what we import from Saudia Arabia. Unlike ethanol, the technology to make bio-diesel is better developed and has less reliance on feed stock and can use more waste product.

CNG makes sense. We have large reserves of natural gas, burns very cleanly, no major technology change required to make it viable, the change needed is a delivery infrastructure for refueling.

Electric makes sense. Ranges are short but one of the great issues with the electric business in the US is the rise and fall of demand creates great inefficieny in power generation. People charging cars at night would go a long way toward making the system more efficient reducing costs. Right now infrastructure is an issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the typical two car family has one burning gas, diesel or CNG that they can take for longer trips and has an electric that is used to commute and run errands around town.

Right after 9/11 there were a few calling for an immediate $1 a gallon tax on gasoline (but no increase or small increase on diesel because of the use for hauling goods) with the proceeds of the tax used to fund researching other fuels, to encourage transition away from gas burning vehicles and to build the needed fueling stations. Slicing demand for oil greatly improves the US trade deficit and keeps US dollars out of the hands of people who haven't always proven to be the best friends.

I know nothing about oil rigs and such....but is BP too worried about capping this in order to resume oil extraction, rather than just stopping the leak?

(06-05-2010 10:40 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I know nothing about oil rigs and such....but is BP too worried about capping this in order to resume oil extraction, rather than just stopping the leak?

No way, BP is worried about capping this well because the life of the company and their reputation around the globe (which is worth billions) is on the line. I would not be surprised if BP never produced this reservoir, and if they do it will probably be at least a decade from now. Even if this would not have happened, it normally takes 5-8 years to get a deepwater platform designed, built and installed. Up to that point, there is no production. They could also lose the lease as a result of this disaster.

(06-05-2010 08:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Diesel makes sense. You can get a VW Jetta TDI and get basically the same MPG as a Prius for less money up front. You get a vehicle that carries a more stable fuel without the risk of a fireman being electrocuted trying to cut you out after a wreck. No reliance on batteries that are an environmental risk when discarded and an extremely reliable engine that should be good for 200,000 to 300,000 miles. Switching to diesel reduces the amount of oil needed. If one-third of US gas burning passenger vehicles are switched to diesel the savings in oil needed is equal to what we import from Saudia Arabia. Unlike ethanol, the technology to make bio-diesel is better developed and has less reliance on feed stock and can use more waste product.

CNG makes sense. We have large reserves of natural gas, burns very cleanly, no major technology change required to make it viable, the change needed is a delivery infrastructure for refueling.

Electric makes sense. Ranges are short but one of the great issues with the electric business in the US is the rise and fall of demand creates great inefficieny in power generation. People charging cars at night would go a long way toward making the system more efficient reducing costs. Right now infrastructure is an issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the typical two car family has one burning gas, diesel or CNG that they can take for longer trips and has an electric that is used to commute and run errands around town.

Right after 9/11 there were a few calling for an immediate $1 a gallon tax on gasoline (but no increase or small increase on diesel because of the use for hauling goods) with the proceeds of the tax used to fund researching other fuels, to encourage transition away from gas burning vehicles and to build the needed fueling stations. Slicing demand for oil greatly improves the US trade deficit and keeps US dollars out of the hands of people who haven't always proven to be the best friends.

I got myself a Jetta TDI just last year...taking advantage of tax breaks and diesel tax breaks. Car is amazing (for a small car). I get average 35mpg in the city and about 45mpg in the highway. I had the gas Jetta before and I feel the TDI is better in every aspect. It feels like it has more power, accelerates better, and the interior is high end.

What I think should be done is tax people with cars that waste too much gas. For example, if you want to drive a hummer...fine! But you have to pay, let's say, $6-$7 a gallon for gas. If you can afford it, fine.
Those who are doing what they can to save gas - getting a hybrid or diesel car - then you pay $1-$2 a gallon. You'll see how many people will switch to economical cars!

And of course, as what has been said...we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels!

(06-06-2010 08:52 AM)PantherNation Wrote:  

(06-05-2010 08:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Diesel makes sense. You can get a VW Jetta TDI and get basically the same MPG as a Prius for less money up front. You get a vehicle that carries a more stable fuel without the risk of a fireman being electrocuted trying to cut you out after a wreck. No reliance on batteries that are an environmental risk when discarded and an extremely reliable engine that should be good for 200,000 to 300,000 miles. Switching to diesel reduces the amount of oil needed. If one-third of US gas burning passenger vehicles are switched to diesel the savings in oil needed is equal to what we import from Saudia Arabia. Unlike ethanol, the technology to make bio-diesel is better developed and has less reliance on feed stock and can use more waste product.

CNG makes sense. We have large reserves of natural gas, burns very cleanly, no major technology change required to make it viable, the change needed is a delivery infrastructure for refueling.

Electric makes sense. Ranges are short but one of the great issues with the electric business in the US is the rise and fall of demand creates great inefficieny in power generation. People charging cars at night would go a long way toward making the system more efficient reducing costs. Right now infrastructure is an issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the typical two car family has one burning gas, diesel or CNG that they can take for longer trips and has an electric that is used to commute and run errands around town.

Right after 9/11 there were a few calling for an immediate $1 a gallon tax on gasoline (but no increase or small increase on diesel because of the use for hauling goods) with the proceeds of the tax used to fund researching other fuels, to encourage transition away from gas burning vehicles and to build the needed fueling stations. Slicing demand for oil greatly improves the US trade deficit and keeps US dollars out of the hands of people who haven't always proven to be the best friends.

I got myself a Jetta TDI just last year...taking advantage of tax breaks and diesel tax breaks. Car is amazing (for a small car). I get average 35mpg in the city and about 45mpg in the highway. I had the gas Jetta before and I feel the TDI is better in every aspect. It feels like it has more power, accelerates better, and the interior is high end.

What I think should be done is tax people with cars that waste too much gas. For example, if you want to drive a hummer...fine! But you have to pay, let's say, $6-$7 a gallon for gas. If you can afford it, fine.
Those who are doing what they can to save gas - getting a hybrid or diesel car - then you pay $1-$2 a gallon. You'll see how many people will switch to economical cars!

And of course, as what has been said...we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels!

Yep, because afterall that's what we do in a free society.

Actually "free society" and using tax code to shape behavior are two totally different issues.

You are free to rent a place to live but you will pay taxes on the money you spend for that place while if you rent you get to deduct the part of that cost that is interest.

You are free to buy a gas guzzler now but if you buy an efficient car on the IRS list, you can reduce your cost by buying an efficient car.

If you buy soft drinks in a bottle you are free to throw the bottle in the trash, or you can return the bottle and collect the deposit so it can be recycled.

My semi-off-topic rant. We are at war. Unlike past wars, there is little visible cost to the public. There is no rationing creating hardship and there is no draft placing anyone except volunteers at risk. Our enemy is funded in large part by US dollars flowing into the middle east to pay for oil and we are too weak and spineless to take any significant steps to reduce the dollars flowing to our enemy. Even if we stamp out Al-Qaeda that money flow will just go to a new group with similar goals that will shape its methods and attacks to adjust for our reaction.

Until we are willing to actually put some skin in the game and endure some hardship to take away their resources the efforts to fight terror aren't going to work. With our natural luck we finally get some movement to increase our own production and this BP thing destroys the political will to open up that drilling.

(06-06-2010 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually "free society" and using tax code to shape behavior are two totally different issues.

You are free to rent a place to live but you will pay taxes on the money you spend for that place while if you rent you get to deduct the part of that cost that is interest.

You are free to buy a gas guzzler now but if you buy an efficient car on the IRS list, you can reduce your cost by buying an efficient car.

If you buy soft drinks in a bottle you are free to throw the bottle in the trash, or you can return the bottle and collect the deposit so it can be recycled.

My semi-off-topic rant. We are at war. Unlike past wars, there is little visible cost to the public. There is no rationing creating hardship and there is no draft placing anyone except volunteers at risk. Our enemy is funded in large part by US dollars flowing into the middle east to pay for oil and we are too weak and spineless to take any significant steps to reduce the dollars flowing to our enemy. Even if we stamp out Al-Qaeda that money flow will just go to a new group with similar goals that will shape its methods and attacks to adjust for our reaction.

Until we are willing to actually put some skin in the game and endure some hardship to take away their resources the efforts to fight terror aren't going to work. With our natural luck we finally get some movement to increase our own production and this BP thing destroys the political will to open up that drilling.

My response was short to avoid any long political discussion, but since you went down this road so be it.

“Actually “free society” and using tax code to shape behavior are two totally different issues.”

This is utter nonsense, anytime government uses the tax codes to manipulate or regulate behavior; it has everything to do with the fundamentals of a free society.

“You are free to buy a gas guzzler now but if you buy an efficient car on the IRS list, you can reduce your cost by buying an efficient car.”

You can increase energy efficiency personally by controlling your thermostat on heating and cooling units, proper insulation of homes, using the public transit system, etc; since when has it become the role of the IRS to steer public policy or manipulate our energy policy by the US tax code?

“If you buy soft drinks in a bottle you are free to throw the bottle in the trash, or you can return the bottle and collect the deposit so it can be recycled.”

That’s a ridicules comparison, the collection of a deposit on a Coke bottle is not regulated by the US tax code.

Look, it’s become very popular amongst elitist in this country to brag about their contributions to energy conservation and then offset their own hypocrisy by buying carbon credits, which amounts to nothing. I have no problem with the Jetta, it’s an excellent vehicle. But it certainly isn’t practical for a family of five, nor is it reasonably priced for the middle class when you talk about buying the diesel package. And it certainly isn’t as save for a family vehicle, as some of the larger vehicles today. If you doubt that, then let’s put that statement to test anytime you are willing to risk your life or the lives of your family.

Look, you can’t simply wean our nation off of fossil fuels without a reasonable transition period and the willingness to invest in alternatives like nuclear energy, hydro energy, clean coal and natural gas. But it seems those same people that want to move to alternatives like solar, wind and bio-fuels are unwilling to even consider the before mentioned.

As for us enduring hardships, perhaps that is easy for someone to say when they simply drive to an office every day to work. For many of us, driving to met clients and potential clients is a necessity for our financial livelihood. So when you talk about hardships, just how much more do you think the working class or middle class can endure now with rising taxes from out of control government spending, rising energy cost and food cost?

The largest consumers of energy in this country are California, Florida, Texas and New York. How many of those states contribute to the energy needs of this country, while allowing illegal immigration to increase energy consumption, and refusing to use their natural resources or allow nuclear plants to be built?

So when we talk about enduring hardships, perhaps we should start with making those that refuse to share their natural resources with the rest of the country pay four times more for their consumption. In the meantime, maybe we can put all those unemployed Louisiana workers in some of those high paying green jobs the president has promised, like picking tree trimmings and building solar powered homes that the middle class can’t afford.

Sorry, rant off.

In my past job I commonly drove 3.5 hours one way and 3.5 back every other week. I know driving.

You don't want to use the tax code to shape positive behavior? I've no problem with it but let's REALLY do it instead of going halfway. Kill the tax breaks for buying new equipment, for hiring new employees, for installing new pollution control equipment, for offering health insurance and treat my investment income the same as my wages.

Let's either have a neutral tax code or a behavior tax code, going halfway won't cut it.

People can switch now from a gas powered Yukon to diesel powered and make an impact. Would it be nice if GM had caught up on next generation high efficiency diesel engines like the one VW makes and the ones Toyota and Honda will be rolling out? Of course it would but something has to happen to stir people to buy.

I've not been convinced by arguments on global warming and all that. I am not convinced that it is reasonable to believe we can eliminate fossil fuel usage in my lifetime or even the lifetime of my grandkids. I am convinced we can make changes that reduce demand and shift demand so dollars remain in the US economy rather than moving to the terror economy.

I'm all for people having the hardship of nuclear plant construction, the "eyesore", "noise pollution" and "bird walloping" of windmills.

I'm tired of seeing us continuing to throw the military into it a war where we fund our enemy.

The middle class is hosed. The question is who do you want to bear the pain? Do we want make tough today so that we hand over a country that produces most of what it needs for infrastructure or do we delay so that they deal with transition issues? Do we take the lead so that we have innovative products and technology other nations demand or do we wait for weaker economies to develop what we need as part of their push to survive and buy it from them?

Diesel makes sense. You can get a VW Jetta TDI and get basically the same MPG as a Prius for less money up front. You get a vehicle that carries a more stable fuel without the risk of a fireman being electrocuted trying to cut you out after a wreck. No reliance on batteries that are an environmental risk when discarded and an extremely reliable engine that should be good for 200,000 to 300,000 miles. Switching to diesel reduces the amount of oil needed. If one-third of US gas burning passenger vehicles are switched to diesel the savings in oil needed is equal to what we import from Saudia Arabia. Unlike ethanol, the technology to make bio-diesel is better developed and has less reliance on feed stock and can use more waste product.

I believe diesel is derived from crude oil as well. There isn't enough waste product to supply what we need via biodiesel. Bio-diesel can't be made in sufficient quantities unless we grow crops specifically for it.

CNG makes sense. We have large reserves of natural gas, burns very cleanly, no major technology change required to make it viable, the change needed is a delivery infrastructure for refueling.

Natural gas is too volatile...one good crash and the entire car blows up.

Electric makes sense. Ranges are short but one of the great issues with the electric business in the US is the rise and fall of demand creates great inefficieny in power generation. People charging cars at night would go a long way toward making the system more efficient reducing costs. Right now infrastructure is an issue.

I agree...not to mention that for about a small investment, you could build a solar charger and get your charges for very little when costs are averaged out.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the typical two car family has one burning gas, diesel or CNG that they can take for longer trips and has an electric that is used to commute and run errands around town.

Right after 9/11 there were a few calling for an immediate $1 a gallon tax on gasoline (but no increase or small increase on diesel because of the use for hauling goods) with the proceeds of the tax used to fund researching other fuels, to encourage transition away from gas burning vehicles and to build the needed fueling stations. Slicing demand for oil greatly improves the US trade deficit and keeps US dollars out of the hands of people who haven't always proven to be the best friends.

I agree, the Saudi's, as a nation, are much too anti west for me. Them and several other countries that we pay to supply us fuel.

Also, electric vehicle batteries will be used in solar and wind farms once they have reached a low capacity for their vehicle.