Congress Divided On Energy Plan

As Gasoline Prices Soar, Both Democratic And GOP Proposals Face Difficult Odds

(AP)  As millions of people approach the summer vacation season under the threat of $4-per-gallon gasoline, Congress is scrambling to respond. But don't wait for anything that will drive down prices at the pump.

A Senate vote on a GOP plan is scheduled for Tuesday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised to bring up a Democratic package before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Except for halting the flow of oil into the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, neither plan is likely to go very far. Both will be challenged by filibusters by opponents, meaning they would require 60 votes to advance.

Here is a rundown:

THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS

Enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

SPIN: Oil companies are making too much money, earning $123 billion last year while motorists faced soaring gasoline costs. Imposing a 25 percent windfall profits tax on the five largest oil companies and repealing $17 billion in tax breaks could help the shift away from fossil fuels toward alternatives. Taxes could be avoided if profits are used for refinery expansion or development of wind, solar or biomass projects.

FACT: Profits are large because the companies are huge, and oil now sells for well over $120 a barrel. The taxes could spur some new alternative energy projects, but economists say they also could reduce investments in oil and gas exploration, and are unlikely to affect prices. They could do more harm than good, says Robert Hansen, senior associate dean at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "Anytime you put in a tax you create an incentive to avoid it," says Hansen.

Create a law against energy price gouging and new rules to stem energy market speculation.

SPIN: The government must police the energy markets with a federal law against price gouging and new rules against market speculation. The proposal creates a federal price gouging law with civil penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency. The law would prohibit refiners, wholesalers and retailers from charging an "unconscionably excessive price." Traders would be required to put up more cash collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.

FACT: Energy price gouging laws now in 28 states are uneven and inadequate to deal with energy market abuses. Congress has considered a gouging law since 2005. Separate versions have passed both the House and Senate, but never gained final approval. Critics say gouging is ill defined and the law amounts to price controls. Bush has threatened a veto.

A former Federal Trade Commission chairman argued such a law could do consumers more harm than good and may result in higher prices if providers, fearing stiff penalties, avoid selling fuel when prices soar.

Increasing cash collateral, or margins, in energy futures trading could curb speculation, but there might be unintended consequences. Such new requirements, said a spokesman for the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which would enforce the new rules, "may drive traders to unregulated trading or overseas" without reducing market abuses.

Take on the OPEC oil cartel.

SPIN: We need to stand up to the OPEC oil cartel. The Justice Department would be given authority to bring antitrust cases against countries that collude to fix prices as part of OPEC.

FACT: While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation. Similar proposals have been debated in Congress since 2005. "It's a catchy phrase, but it doesn't have any substance," says energy consultant Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


THE REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS

Pump oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, now off limits.

SPIN: The coastal strip of ANWR, as the refuge is called, probably has 11 billion barrels of oil. At the rate of 1 million barrels a day, it would add to domestic production, reduce U.S. reliance on imports, lower prices and produce jobs. With modern technology wildlife and the environment can be protected.

FACT: Drilling in ANWR has been debated for 28 years and remains one of the most contentious environmental issues. Several times the House, under GOP control, has approved development; it passed Congress in 1995 only to be vetoed by President Clinton. Drilling supporters repeatedly have been unable to get the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters and are unlikely to do so this time.

While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years. Even then, its impact on global production of 87 billion barrels a day will be minimal, energy experts say, as OPEC could adjust to compensate.

Develop vast amounts of oil and natural gas in offshore waters now off limits.

SPIN: For a quarter century, energy development has been blocked in more than 80 percent of U.S. coastal waters, depriving the country of vast oil and gas resources. States should be allowed waivers to the moratoria and get some of the revenues from development.

FACT: Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and off much of Alaska have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage. The House has twice approved giving states the right to opt out of the federal ban.

Ease permitting for new refineries.

SPIN: A shortage of refineries is fueling high gasoline and diesel prices. There has not been a new one built in 30 years, with environmental and other permitting problems contributing to the reluctance of oil companies to build new refineries.

FACT: The lack of new refinery construction has been more an issue of economics, not government regulations. While the oil industry has complained about permitting and environmental regulations, oil company executives also have said the permitting issue has not been a deciding factor over refinery expansion or construction. Refinery investments are based in expectations of increased demand.

Oil company executives, asked recently if they wanted to build new refineries, said no. In part, this is because of the growth of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. The industry prefers to expand existing refineries.

Allow coal-based diesel be used as motor fuel.

SPIN: Coal is the country's most abundant energy resource, and technology exists to produce diesel fuel from coal. A mandate to produce 6 billion gallons a year of coal-derived motor fuel by 2022 would contribute to greater energy independence and spur the industry's development.

FACT: The process requires large amounts of energy and results in greenhouse gas emissions, running counter to efforts to combat global warming.

[singingrick]

If we had spent the 3 trillion dollars we''re going to spend trying to steel Iraq''s oil, instead on developing the sustainable energy sources we already have, we''d be well on our way to energy independence. We''d be exporting this technology to the world. Instead, we''re exporting dollars and blood to import oil.

Of course, this would have taken the kind of forward thinking leadership that "conservatives" are completely incapable of.

[missingamerica]

"Take on the OPEC oil cartel."

Hah hah hah hah...snort.

Yeah, right. Possible when we and our NATO and SEATO allies controlled the demand side of the market.

But Clinton and his Republican partners traded that leverage away along with our jobs back in the ''90s, when he and they created the enormous oil demand that is China and India in their pursuit of the profits enabled by low cost labor and absent environmental regulation.

The fact is we Americans are in a box and the inequitable "free trade" treaties nailed the lid shut.

We need to get complete OFF of oil - whether its origin is OPEC or elsewhere.

Else there are some mighty cold winters coming.

[oleander8]

Ugly as it is - gas prices need to remain high if for no other reason than alternative energy methods are finally being taken seriously. People are moving out of their SUV''s, wind, solar and other alternative energy methods are being given a chance and receiving funding. Making gasoline cheap again just postpones facing the problem.

[missingamerica]

(P.S. Many more of these "SPIN/FACT" articles, and I bet you the API starts doling out money through their lobbyists to have CBS labeled a "terrorism facilitator".)

[pgkuchar]

The only proposal that makes any sense and could have "some" impact is raising the margins required on futures trading in oil and gas. While it is true that some traders would take their business off shore, it still likely to have some effect since the NYME is where much of the volume of trading occurs. It sends a clear signal that speculators aren''t welcome. The message would be that if you intend to do future trading on oil or gas you intend to actually buy it. I only see upside to it even if I didn''t have a huge effect. The U.S. needs to be clear that using oil and gas futures as a hedge against the dollar is not welcome in U.S. markets.

[missingamerica]

Speaking of "margins" - wonder how many of those billions in profits Big Oil has made are floating around in the oil commodities market.

Nothing like feathering your own nest by padding the margins with your own feathers...

[sjc_1]

I would favor an oil import fee over a profits tax. If you want to encourage exploration and reduce imports, that is the way. In 5 years of tax breaks for the oil companies, there has been no large increase in exploration investments nor found reserves.

[missingamerica]

In 5 years of tax breaks for the oil companies, there has been no large increase in exploration investments nor found reserves.

Posted by sjc_1 at 09:47 AM : May 12, 2008

Posted by ibsteve2u at 08:48 AM : May 12, 2008

Get a clue.

Posted by zoe2006 at 09:41 AM : May 12, 2008

Exactly to my point...no expensive oil exploration efforts, no expensive new refineries built...so where are all of those billions in oil company profits going?

Checking accounts somewhere, in return for some free toasters?

Or is it more likely that such vast sums would be invested somewhere that would provide vast returns...say, the oil commodities market?

[missingamerica]

Posted by ibsteve2u at 08:48 AM : May 12, 2008

The OIL problem, is BUSH/CHENEY...

Get a clue.

Posted by zoe2006 at 09:41 AM : May 12, 2008

lolll...I just saw the date/time stamp that indicated which of my comments that you were referring to, zoe...

I gather that you think I should "get a clue" and restrict my comment content to attacks upon the Bush/Cheney form of Republicans - and leave Clinton alone?

Not likely - I won''t shield anybody from their portion of the responsibility for the current state of America''s economy or the dim prospects for America''s future.

That includes the Democrats.

Assuming that the Clintons really are Democrats, which I think is stretching the meaning of "Democrat" quite a bit.

[sjc_1]

Carter started ethanol and synthetic fuels in the U.S. Reagan decided to send war ships to the Gulf and we know the rest. Just 1 year''s spending in Iraq invested in cellulose ethanol plants would allow us to not have to buy any more middle eastern oil. It would be nice not to be manipulated by other countries. I would call that better National Security.

[rochest]

how about conservation with tax breaks for homeowners that insulate and byte energy-efficient light bulbs cars and appliances ..... the subsidies/tax credits available presently are very wimpy.

invest in renewable energy research and development to a much greater extent than presently ... and what about more solar farms in our deserts ? I know the native Americans have large unemployment rates would they be interested in having solar farms in their South Western reservations?

in order to solve this problem we need to think outside the box not keep looking the same old energy sources for the answer!

[talkingham]

My eneregy plan is nationalize the the oil companies and oil resources in this country. If oil isn''t crucial to our national security and national economy then what is? After all, we are killing thousands of people in Iraq so the oil resources of Iraq "can belong to the Iraqi people." Obviously the oil resources in the US belong to a few greedy billionaires and CEOs.

Just last Fall the price of oil dropped to $44/barrel before it was artificially hiked back up to the absurd levels. Back when gas was $2.50gal in January I said Bush would have it up to $4/gal by the end of Summer. Well the liar and decider heir Bush proved me wrong, it will be $4 by the start of Summer and likely $5gal by the end of Summer. This liar won''t stop until he wrecks our economy just like every business daddy Bush ever bought lil Bush.

[missingamerica]

Carter started ethanol and synthetic fuels in the U.S. Reagan decided to send war ships to the Gulf and we know the rest. Just 1 year''''s spending in Iraq invested in cellulose ethanol plants would allow us to not have to buy any more middle eastern oil. It would be nice not to be manipulated by other countries. I would call that better National Security.

Posted by sjc_1 at 10:09 AM : May 12, 2008

Interesting and true point...Carter generally got shafted by the consequences of Big Oil''s ability to keep America addicted to oil.

Because of that economic shock from the OPEC oil embargo, then as now our economy took a huge hit - which in turn enabled the Republicans and their policies of "the rich should get richer even at the expense of the rest of America", inequitable "free trade", our wars in the Gulf, and on and on and on...

In general, oil is both our nation''s primary strategic vulnerability and our nation''s primary corrupting influence.

I wonder what Cheney would think should somebody take his war-enabling statement that "Oil remains fundamentally a government business." to the next step that our rapidly approaching crisis makes both logical and self-evident and nationalize all oil companies?

[forthepeopl1]

it has nothing to with opec.

united states of america get 3/4 of its oil from ,

mexico, and canada,

wake up america

[sjc_1]

More than 80% of the world''s oil reserves are in the hands of national oil companies. One half of the known reserves are in the middle east. We need to get hybrids and cellulose ethanol going in a big way. Peak world oil production may be reached in the next few years at about 100 million barrels per day. Oil is a finite resource and with demand increasing there is no way supply can keep up on our present path. Reserve replacement has fallen behind for years. They are suppose to find a barrel for each one that they pump out, they have not and will not. Mexico is in decline and Canada is processing expensive tar sands. It is time for a change and I think people know this.

[wdrussell1]

I know what you are saying sjc_1. Also one year in Iraq, we have been there 5 years, is enough money to put solar panels on EVERY home in America.

[andylance1]

"Most areas of federal offshore waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico have been placed off limits to drilling by a succession of presidential orders and congressional action to protect tourist industries and avoid the risk of spills and environmental damage."

This the primary reason we do not have enough domestic oil and have to import oil from Chavez and the Middle East.

How much financial pain does the American consumer have to endure before we permit oil drilling off coastal waters?

We must build more oil refineries and nuclear energy plants. We have to accept some risk. Why not fine the oil companies $750 million if they have an oil spill?
Like the ostrich, Congress has their head buried in the sand. Individual states should not be allowed to veto oil and gas exploration and drilling.

We must also end the folly of farm subsidies and ethanol for fuel.

[oscarez]

The world is going to run out of crude oil in 30 years and the congress will still be debating what to do about it. The EU will have solved the problem and will be the world%u2019s top economic power.

[fstop100]

Our oil companies do not pay the open market prices for oil. They own most of their own wells and get the oil for almost nothing. Refining costs yes, but they sell everyday based on crude prices. This means windfall profits, and a very few people becoming very wealthy.
Big oil has alway been based on Greed.

[killtheliars]

here are a few thoughts.
In the 70''s oil and gas were controlled and overseen by the government. Once the oil and gas industry was privatized gas princes jumped instantly and have never dropped near what they were before.
Do not let companies refining gas and diesel here in the U.S. export it to cheaper markets. I am pasting a link to an article that will blow your mind. The bottom line is a freight company owner in AZ cannot afford $4.00 per gallon diesel. He purchased a 500 gallon tanker and started going over to mexico and purchasing the same U.S. refined deisel for $2.00 per gallon
http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=19882&topicId=8068
My question is why are we in the U.S. paying $4.00 for a product that sells for $2.00 in Mexico. If Mexican cannot afford more then $2.00 wouldn''t it make more sense to keep it all in the U.S increase supply and hopefully drop the price of deisel in the U.S. by a dollar or so. Also who the hell cares what people in mexico can and cannot afford?

[hypnotoad72]

andylance1 - I agree. And if nuclear power plants are built properly, with quality materials, redundancy, and trained staff thew risks become MINIMAL and EVERYBODY prospers in return.

We''ll always need oil, but using other sources for energy isn''t going to hurt the oil industry or anyone else.

And I too would like to see more domestic drilling, if the time becomes necessary. Compared to 30 years ago, newer technologies make new wells and refineries safer. I think it''s time to move forward.

[sjc_1]

We can save more in the next 10 years than we can begin to get out of ANWR. It would be 10 years before one drop comes out and it would provide less than 5% of our daily consumption. 10 years from now we will be using 10% more on the present path, this must stop.

ANWR is about making profits for the oil companies. There is no guarantee that any of that oil would come here anyway. In 1995 the Gingrich Congress repealed the requirement that Alaskan oil must come here.

Get rid of the big SUVs, develop hybrids and cellulose ethanol, carpool, telecommute, ride share, do whatever you have to do to use less oil. You will be glad you did.

[scottyusa]

How about simply capping the profits that oil companies can make. Once they hit that the prices have to come down. That way the benefit actually goes right to the people that need it. There is no such thing as a free market in the oil industry. The prices are contolled by speculators and the profits are outrageous on a product that is a necessity. If they get taxed more then they will just pass that on to us. Yeah that will help

[timetrips1]

Time to nationalize the Oil Companies, or at a minimum regulate them like the phone company. Both are national assets and critical infrastructure. Do not allow any oil to be EXPORTED and average the cost of local production with the import costs and you have gas selling at 50% what it is now.

[trillion1]

I''ve seen some interesting ideas here but they all hinge on the goverment giving a d*mn about the American people and they don''t.

[mbburch06]

Gotta love the Dems still trying to gain traction with their standard cliches: "windfall profits" and "price gouging."

ExxonMobil made about an 8% profit last year. The nominal figure is huge because the company is huge. No one goes into business to break even.

Dems are hoping that most people are too stupid to figure this out and will fall for the standard anti-capitalist memes. They''re probably right.

[tomanyt]

Whoopie Goldberg is right...our government can''t do s.h.i.t.

[Syndicate]

An energy policy should look fifty years down the road. Oil should be a major componet for the next ten years in order to ease transition. After that oil based fuels should be available as legacy fuels. After ten years all cars and internal combustion engines should be biofuel and/or hydrogen powered. Biofuels would be grown and produced domesticly along with hydrogen. Oil demand should tapper off to allow domestic production. Electrical needs would be met with a combination of Solar panels and nuclear power plants. By 2050 we could phase out the Internal combustion engine for fuel cells and the Nuclear Fission plants for nuclear fusion.

[cfin5]

The following quote is the SECOND best one I''ve ever found for why we need to elect RON PAUL, the un-CFR, pro-constitution candidate for the Presidency,.....not the other three......"If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain substinence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers"......Thomas Jefferson

[rf35]

"While politically popular, such a measure would probably not change OPEC production decisions and could provoke retaliation."

Then they risk a US retaliation. Massive retaliation. Nuclear retaliation. And I''m not talking about power plants.

Really, the only way to get out from under OPEC is to transition away from internal combustion to power vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is here and being sold by at least two auto makers. It goes without saying that both are imports. The technology for producing hydrogen in sufficient amounts to provide for a total fuel switchover is less that 10 years away. We need to start building hydrogen infrastructure NOW! Equip filling stations so they will be ready to accept and dispense hydrogen. Start planning and building plants that will grow the hydrogen-producing algae that are going to be the primary source. Get the US automakers to realize that this is what should be powering all their 2015 models. And for Pete''s sake, get over ethanol! It''s not a viable option!

[rf35]

cfin5, you''re kidding, right? RuPaul would be a better president than Ron Paul.

[cfin5]

Now for the BEST reason to vote for RON PAUL to quit the governmental "spendaholism".....James 5:1-6....Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished you hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.....( notice how the labourers wages were held back by FRAUD?)

[j-whitman]

cfin5,,,,, Keep in mind,,, the GOP concept of "Smaller Government & No Regulation" has caused all of our nation''s problems both foreign & domestic. It kills our toops & our nation

[rgkntulsa]

What an article! Nothing but doom and despair, there is nothing we can do. It''s hopeless.
Don''t believe it! There are enumerable solutions to this problem with the right leadership.

[cfin5]

cfin5,,,,, Keep in mind,,, the GOP concept of "Smaller Government & No Regulation" has caused all of our nation''''s problems both foreign & domestic. It kills our toops & our nation

Posted by j-whitman at 02:04 PM : May 12, 2008-----Yes, but not all. The democrats are accomplice by signing on which I knew they would. This is why they hate Ron because he is not, nor ever will be a CFR stooge. The modern democrat vs. republican is a shell game as globalism and its policies rule the day.

[cfin5]

j,....I meant to say that the smaller government and regulations that were actually implemented are for the corporations,....not for you and me. Nothings changed there.

[j-whitman]

cfin5,,,, Tell that to our troops who have to search KBR living quraters & offices for their stolen equipment sold on EBay & Iraq''s black market. ---- It''s an extra burden that distracts from their missions.

Tell that to our citizens at home who have watched the cost of food & education skyrocket... Tell that to our nations small farmers & millions needing health care & living wages.

Tell that to our 1st defenders who are told by this White House to make do with what you have. Tell that to our Border Patrol agents in prison for doing their job.

Tell that to the ex governor of Alabama who Karl Rove Framed & sent to prison.

Tell that to the CIA who lose covert agents & missions because of the treason from this White House

Tell that to Americans who for 8 years have been forced to tolorate dishonorable American Leaders & their flat out lies.

Tell that to your children & grandchildren who will be paying the cost.

[tylenol6]

cfin5 I totally agree with you about voting for RON
PAUL for president......People who are voting for Hitlery, Obama and McCain are the sheep. They don''t even
know why they are voting for them. Do your research people!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hitlery, Obama & McCain are all one
of the same. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

[j-whitman]

tylenol6,,,, No not really. -- It''s still a Clinton 2, a Bush 3, or a younger generation who recongnizes the dire need for change

[stn_sage]

ExxonMobil made about an 8% profit last year. The nominal figure is huge because the company is huge. No one goes into business to break even.
Posted by mbburch06 at 01:10 PM : May 12, 2008
---------------------------------------------------
My response: I haven''t seen their accting stmt from 2007 (have you?). But, assuming it was 8%, and BILLIONS of dollars---the nominal figure is huge because they''re raking in the money, it has nothing to do with the SIZE of the company! Profits are profits after costs---regardless of the size of your company! Get it,now?

I''m in favor of price caps and windfall profits tax, and active legal action against companies who have shut down refineries to drive prices up! ALL Reps
proposals are useless! They allowed oil companies to write the last energy bill that have added to current problems anyway! So, it''s not surprising their proposals ARE useless, is it?!

[sjc_1]

Oil import fee would be preferable to a profits tax. OPEC might retaliate and we would have to consider that, but they told us that if we used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a market price mechanism they would retaliate. What is next? I for one am tired of having our chain yanked for 30 years. Let''s get on with hybrids and cellulose ethanol and tell them to pound sand. I hear they have lots of that too.

[tomanyt]

Profit taxes were tried out in the 1970''s and failed.

[steve668702]

Reading many of these posts leaves me frustrated as to the education people receive in this country. That said, windfall taxes will not work. They were tried by Jimmy Carter with the result of less exploration and investment in NEW technologies, a cutback in domestic production, and MORE oil imports. Increasing taxes on oil companies straight out will result in the costs being passed directly to us.

Renewable energy sources should be pursued and have been pursued. But they are limited in their ability to provide energy. You would need to completely blanket Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah in solar panels to meet our daytime energy needs which can''t be met at night. A similar discussion can be had about wind.

Nuclear is the best current option for energy production and the next generation of plants being designed will have a dual purpose. Provide electricity as they currently do AND provide O2 and H2 as a byproduct in abundance. Fusion or energy generation from space will be the best options for the future.

Nothing in the renewable arsenal today can come close to providing our energy needs.

The change in margins on speculators will do a lot for getting the fluctuations and flurry of activity the past year under control. The other factor nobody speaks to is the plunge of the dollar. How much would a gallon of gas today cost in a 2002 dollar? Less than 2 bucks......

[stn_sage]

I''m disappointed in all the posters who say, ''we tried that already, and it didn''t work''!
Well, if it didn''t work, it was because they didn''t want it to work!

My initial post ONLY included headings of actions I''d take, it didn''t include the ''fine points''. The details. And, it didn''t address additional actions I''d take outside of what was basically proposed by Congress!

In short, I enact more regulation. Regulation is not bad. It just has to be effective. That''s better than nationalization, and if oil companies don''t do a better job, someday down-the-road, ten or twelve years from now, it may happen anyway, huh?!

[stn_sage]

I''d also expand solar, wind, and water-burning car technology!

[kennedy7955]

Our energy companies have not invested in new refineries, green energy, the electrical grid or pay their fair share of taxes. Combine these facts with the misinformation they have spread through financing pseudo-science organizations and we have companies not operating in the best interests of this country. If these energy companies don''t have the sense to do the right things like reinvesting their massive profits in our infrastructure and renewable energy, then the government should force them through higher taxes.

[stn_sage]

various comments
Posted by kennedy7955 at 04:55 PM : May 12, 2008
---------------------------------------------------
My response: You give a great description of the problem(s) and a solution. The govt ''making them'' take action by taxing them. What is taxing them?
Regulation! It''s NOT a dirty word. It''s what is going to happpen! It IS the only way out of this problem!

[talkingham]

This story is a load of slop. Instead of really doing anything about biofuels we get the same old there''s nothing we can do about this. Complete lies. Even in the area of biofuels for some reason all you hear about is corn based ethanol- which is actually perhaps the worst of all the biofeuls in terms of yield per acre. Corn gives a tiny 18 gal per acre whereas something like sunflowers gives mroe than 100/gal acre, pecans 191 gal per acre, oil palm 635 gal per acre. Even mustard seds gives 61 gal per acre compared to corn''s 18.

But since Archer Daniel Midland has so much invested in corn, corn sweetners and corn killers liek high frutose corn syrup you aren''t goign to hear much about anything but corn in this corrupt country.

You heard me right. Corn = 18gal per acre
Avcado - 262 gal per acre, the list goes on and on- so why does the media focus on corn-based ethanol fuels, because the media which made the current conflict in iraq possible doesn''t care.

[ramos937]

The actual costs of getting the oil out of the ground, refining it and delivering it as gasoline to your neighborhood station has not changed dramatically in the past few years except for one major factor - The speculators.

Oil speculation in oil commondities has seen a very dramatic increase in oil speculation. One speculator buys a bbl for $70 then sells it to another for $80 and that speculator sells it to another for $90 and so on and so on until it reaches the present price of $126 and will probably not stop until who knows when.

Someone smarter than I will have to find a way to stop this spiral. One way would be to impose a punitive tax on oil speculation solely. If it is not profitable to speculate, then the speculators will cease to do so.

Why the Congress and the President have not done this - I just don''t know.

[cfin5]

Posted by talkingham at 05:23 PM : May 12, 2008-----Well said. As I understand the markets intentions in the future for ethanol production, these other crops than corn are what farmers are willing to do (around here anyway) to make a living. Remember the industry is in its infancy, not to mention farmers are tooled with their equipment to harvest certain crops. Ever checked out the price of some of this equipment? If even available, you''ll need your welding goggles on to keep your eyes from getting fried......I purchased an E85 flex-fuel vehicle for these reasons: 1- I would rather hire an American Farmer to make my fuel than an Arab. 2- Said farmers spend their money in OUR economy, not a foreign one. 3- I now have two choices for fuel instead of one. 4- The fuel systems are stainless steel and non-corrosive which is a real benefit here in the salt induced rust belt.....I want to be able to buy an electric car someday for those quick trips that need to be done all the time. In short, ANYTHING to get us the heck away from the middle east mess!