Comment

Comment by John Paul Jones on March 18, 2012 at 11:47am

First comment is to Mr. Jones, again you are looking at a small part of the picture.  In the United States alone we have enough natural resources to last America about 500 years; this includes oil gas and coal.  In addition we have nuclear energy to bank on.  Jerry what makes America different from the rest of the world? I will tell you, Americans have always been a innovate people if allowed to move within a free market.  Within the next hundred years there will be an energy source that covers two thirds of the earth surface; its called fusion one ounce of fuel has enough energy to power a plant for 1 year.  You won't have to worry about the supply of energy. 

The next item is the cost of energy and profit, again using a free market to find its level the law of supply and demand apply.  In a free market profit is important and big company's always want more.  The more money they make the greater the expenditure there is to find more ways to keep the flow of money coming in which mean exploring of new energy sources to keep profits flowing.  This always creates jobs and higher pay, this allows people to spend more money and create businesses and use more energy so the energy company's grow.

Cheap energy is the key to the security and stability America.  Energy will determine America's future, Jerry all of the sources you propose cannot possibly fill the needs of CHEAP energy. 

The next comment is for Shawn Simpson.

What you say is the truth, I would like to add if Obama wants electric cars to run America, where is he going to get the energy to operate them?  Obama has stopped building of power plants, refineries and we can't drill however, Obama has a better idea we can purchase all of our energy from the Middle East so we can pay terrorist to destroy America using our own money to do it. Obama is always willing to bow down to the Saudi's, Iranians and all of nations who seek to destroy us. 

Comment by David Ammerman on March 17, 2012 at 4:36pm

So Obama wants to make the Pro Drill proponents look like a bunch of Luddites.

 “They probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who said television won't last -- just a flash in the pan.  One of Henry Ford's advisers was quoted as saying the horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a fad,” Obama said chuckling. “There have always been folks like that. There have always been folks who are the naysayers and don't believe in the future and don't believe in trying to do things differently.”

  Now the car overtook the horse, not because the govermnet restricted horse reproduction. But because people learned how to make better cheaper cars, and it made sense to buy one. And the investors in cars made money, and the buggy whip manufactures went out of business.   This scenario has been played out for ever, and has been one of this countryies biggest advantages. Rewarding innovators, and leaving naysayers behind.  

  Restricing demostic oil production lowers are standard of living. Robs us of disposable income, which could be used to innovate and develop other energy sources. 

 

Comment by David Ammerman on March 17, 2012 at 3:49pm

Jerry, if wind power looks as easy and profitable as you stated. With land owners getting lease payments of around $12,000 annually and who knows how much the owners of the windturbins make, why aren't business jumping in. What's holding it back amd what could the goverment do to encourage it.

 

Comment by Shawn Simpson on March 17, 2012 at 7:31am

I guess if you never start the drilling you will never find the true answer.

The oils companies like the way it is right now because the price is up and they make more Money.

If you start drilling, Yes the price will come down. Yes they will start to drill because in the long run they will still make money and that my friends is what most Americans want. Drll Here Drill Now Pay Less.

If Newt Gingrich was elected believe me the oil companies will be lined up trying to get leases to drill.

So all you Tree Huggers go home and sit next to your wind turbine. You can't move products around with a turbine strapped to you truck.

Fill her up Please!!

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 17, 2012 at 1:01am

 

I have no problem with profits -- my company makes a profit too, so does Mitt Romneys company -- but, profits make decisions.  Oil companies aren't going to magically start drilling in the U.S. just because the government wants them to, or changes the laws.  They are going to keep on using their drilling resources where the oil is cheap and easy to get.  Haliburton, the largest oil service company in the world -- they make a living off of drilling -- left the U.S. and moved their headquarters to Dubay.  They are no longer even a U.S. company -- because the cheap oil isn't here anymore.

I read an article written from an interview with an oil company analyst two weeks ago.  The basic premis of the article was that the U.S, could be self sufficient in energy from oil and natural gas.  The article had the statistics to prove it -- and they appeared to be fairly valid and I believe that they were telling the truth.  What caught my eye was a sentence in the very last paragraph (about three pages into the article where few people probably even made it).  It said that we can be self-sufficient with oil and natural gas -- but, it will be very expensive.

My entire point is, wind won't be expensive, because it isn't that expensive now, and the price won't be driven up by skyrocketing fuel prices – driven by the rapidly growing world demand.  Oil companies will drill here when the price of crude oil is high enough to make a nice profit -- and gasoline is around $7 a gallon.  Many of us will be very happy with electric or plug-in hybrids, powered by wind energy, when gas is $7 a gallon.

I want to make sure that the wind energy is there when that times comes -- and it is getting close.  Gas is up 30+ cents from last year -- it will only take 6 years for average gas prices to hit $7 a gallon.  It will take at least that long before the U.S. has any significant wind energy available -- and only if we rapidly accelerate the building of wind energy systems.  To put that in perspective, that will be around the time that Newt will be wanting to start a second term.  How friendly will everyone be to him if he's presiding over $7 a gallon gasoline? 

But, if we rapidly accelerate the production of wind energy and the use of plug-in electric and hybrid cars -- gas won't go that high and oil companies won't be here drilling $100 million wells, either -- and Newt could get re-elected.  It will help the U.S. economy in other ways too -- for example, Ford not too long ago had more hybrid car models than any other car company, and GM has done a great job with the Volt -- it has some bugs, but so did the first light bulb which only lasted a few minutes before burning out.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 17, 2012 at 12:43am

I know that when we drilled in Alaska, the world oil reserves (known proven fields) had enough oil to last for 7 years -- (that is defined as how long we would have oil, if we didn't find anymore oil).  Today, World oil reserves have dwindled to only about 3 years.  We are finding only about 1 new barrel of oil for every 2 that we burn up.  You can drill all you want to – but first you have to find it and exploration, even using massively powerful computer systems, just isn’t finding enough to keep up. The world demand is growing rapidly, and China and India are buying long term oil contracts all over the world -- we are going to have to compete with them in a bidding war for oil.  China may be using the same amount of oil as the U.S. by around 2017 at their current rate of growth.  The U.S. uses 25% of all of the oil pumped out of the ground, world wide.  The production rate cannot be increased to accomodate just two of the 177 countries on earth using, between them, 50% of all of the oil -- without the price going sky high. 

In 2000, when George Bush was elected, the U.S. was the number 1 country in the world in wind energy.  Today, we are in last place of the major industrialized countries.  Some countries are approaching 25% of their energy from wind -- the U.S. is just now creeping toward 2%!  But, the U.S. has, what is described as the "Saudi Arabia of Wind" in our Great Plains.  Not the Western Great Plains, where transmission lines are scarce -- but in the Eastern and Central Plains, where there are cities to use the power and transmission lines to move it, but plenty of agricultural land for generating it.  There is no reason -- other than poor political policies by the U.S. government -- why the U.S. is not still number 1 in the world in wind energy.  We should be!

Norway, for example, by an unfortunate mistake by the UK, happens to own much of the North Sea oil.  They produce so much oil that they are a member of OPEC.  They have vast oil reserves, compared to the United States.  But, they are investing heavily in wind energy -- because they see clearly that oil is a rapidly dwindling resource and they don't want to be stuck in an oil based economy when renewable energy becomes the main source of energy in the world.

There is no question that the U.S. must have a balanced policy of energy -- we use so much that no single source, today, could supply us.  But, the future is in renewables and because of it's low cost -- wind.  Hydro is much cheaper than pretty much anything, but we've already damed up almost all of the major waterways in the U.S.  Nuclear has hidden costs – many companies continue to run their outdated nuclear plants because it would cost too much to decommission them.  Also, we still have no place to store the waste, since the States are blocking the storage in Yucca Mountain and/or blocking the transport of waste through their state.  One thing that worries many people in that industry is the amount of nuclear waste stored in unguarded water ponds next to nuclear plants – plenty to make dozens of “dirty bombs”.  Even if we don’t have a super tsunami like Japan, we haven’t begun to pay for the nuclear energy that we’ve already used.

Cheap oil in the U.S. is gone.  We started the whole oil industry, and we've drilled and drilled and drilled.  Oil is so expensive in the U.S. that the oil industry (not one company because they couldn't afford it alone) drilled a well in the Gulf of Mexico two summers ago that proved a nice new field.  As far as I know they aren't drilling any more wells -- not because of government regulations -- but, because it was a 22,000 foot deep well that cost $100 million.  No single oil company could even afford to drill it.  Sure there is clearly a lot of oil left in the U.S. but, so long as oil is cheap and easy to get in the Middle East -- they are going to dominate the drilling, because cheap oil means big profits.

I have no problem with

Comment by David Ammerman on March 15, 2012 at 11:40pm

Yes, sir I do. Thats why I've come here to ask questions and see what other Newt supporters think about energy. Your U-tube clear and present danger  is a helpfull argument that I'll use  if I get in  an energy discussion.

 Back a few post I said "I'm tired of hearing liberals say that drilling for evil oil, won't bring down the price of it, and that it's a global commodity anyway." I was hoping to find good counter arguments for it, with facts ect. Along the same lines I always hear about all the subsidies oil companies get. What are they and are some of them valid.

  Today Rush spent a good hour talking about oil and it was very helpful. That's all the time I have for now.

 

 

  

Comment by John Paul Jones on March 14, 2012 at 12:12pm

Jerry my info is not out dated.  You need to look at the whole picture you can only see a thumb nail view.  As for David Ammerman you need to get educated on energy and the production thereof.

Comment by David Ammerman on March 14, 2012 at 12:29am

Wind sounds good to me, sounds like it should take care of itself.  What sort of legislation would aid it. I've Trucked trow the great plains so I know it some, not much out there from Billings to Fargo. How far can you run the power from out of there. I can't image why anyone  out there wouldn't want to get one or start a wind farm.

 Lets start the GPWIT Great Plains Wind Investment Trust  Wall Street loves acronyms.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 13, 2012 at 9:17pm

The lease cost comes out of the revenue stream from the sale of electricity, minus the transmission costs and operations costs.  Typically, in the U.S. each turbine will pay around $12,000 annually to the land owner.  Wind turbines generally will use about 4% of the land area, which would be roughly a net loss of around $75.00 per year in food production per turbine.  The land owner looses 75 bucks and gains 12 grand each year.  Wind development companies are always looking for investors -- many are financed with Utility Bonds or other types of instruments.  Some of the turbine manufacturers develop their own wind farms -- so investing in GE or Clipper Windpower would be a good place to start -- to keep the money here in the U.S.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 13, 2012 at 9:10pm

Here's the problem, most people don't understand the oil industry, and make assumptions that are not valid.  Nice ideas, but here's the problems -- if the cost of the oil pipeline, plus the production cost, makes the oil more expensive than market price, it won't sell, unless we take a loss on the operation of the pipeline and the oil companies may have to take a loss on the production costs.  Exploration and drilling aren't cheap and are much much more expensive in ANWR and other places in the U.S.  It is very cheap to drill and produce oil elsewhere.  If the market price is lower than the cost of production and pipeline transport -- we and the oil companies take a net loss.  As a taxpayer I don't want to do that, and I'm sure the oil companies don't either.

  Also, can't turn it on and off.  The oil comes out of the ground warm -- it has to stay warm enough to be pumped 900 miles or so.  Just as we cannot shut down the existing pipeline, we won't be able to shut this one down either -- once the oil starts flowing, it must continue to flow -- otherwise it will get too cold to pump and it will cause a $100 billion dollar (taxpayer funded) clean out problem.  So, unless the price of oil on the market is high enough to cover all of those costs -- no oil company will drill there.

Comment by David Ammerman on March 13, 2012 at 9:03pm

Fix and build the pipelines, put in the infrastructor to drill in ANWR. It's a matter of National defense and economic security. Figure out how much it will cost and recover it as the oil flows. Also since we the tax payers own the pipeline let's dedicated some of it's revenue generating capacity to pay down some of the national debt and fund alterantive energies.           

 Anticipating the market fluction of the price of oil should be factored in so that when oil is cheap we buy it off the market and when oil is expensive we run more oil down the pipe line. Much like the Fed. does with intrest rates. Having the ability to get this oil will gives us a much better negotiating possition in the world on many issues, and it would probably keep the price of oil down.

  Of course there are many details to work out, and it will take a long time to set the whole thing up.  Who knows how much oils there, but I'd rather be prepared. It's an expensive insrance policy for sure, and if things work out with alternative energy a big waste.

  Who would the farmers and ranchers get their lease payments from? How much food production would be negativly effected. Were can I invest?

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 13, 2012 at 8:49pm

John Paul Jones, yes I'm in favor of wind, because of the numbers.  Your data is outdated -- wind turbines have become more efficient and towers are taller to capture better wind but coal just keeps getting more and more expensive.

 

Coal is not yet clean either -- 2/3 of the man produced mercury being dumped into our environment is from buring coal to produce electricity.  All states now have "do not eat" warnings on lakes -- some states now have those warnings on over 50% of their lakes.  If we do clean up coal, then the cost will be about 6 cents per killowatt hour (including capital, fuel, insurance, operations, maintenance, etc.) and taking into account that coal plants operate about 85% of the time.  The cost of properly located wind energy sytems is about 4 - 5 cents per killowatt hour (including capital, insurance, operations, maintenance -- but not including fuel cost, because there isn't any) and taking into account that wind systems operate about 38% of the time.  The only energy sources that are cheaper than wind are natural gas and hydro.

 

As for drilling -- sure, go ahead -- but, the oil companies aren't going to do it.  So long as oil is cheaper to produce elsewhere, they are profit driven and they aren't going to magically start drilling in the U.S. -- it is just too expensive.  They have millions of acres already leased in the U.S. that they aren't drilling here, but they are drilling in the Middle East -- the oil is just too plentiful and cheap there.  Yes, when the price of oil goes up so that gasoline is $6 or $7 a gallon, they'll be happy to drill here -- but until then, it's just not going to happen -- no matter that the politicians in Washington say it will.

Comment by John Paul Jones on March 13, 2012 at 4:36pm

Jerry, still trying to push alternative energy, you are talking into the wind as I stated before and gave you the reasons to back it up.  Enough already with wind.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 13, 2012 at 5:09am

farmer or rancher could receive as much as $144,000 in wind energy lease payments annually -- and that would be a steady income, not subject to drought, insects, etc. 

 

I just don't understand why we would invest in oil, when we could do something positive for the agricultural industry, and it would be great for the economy of the U.S. to be spending that money there, and it would produce an energy resource that won't run out, won't go up in price, and will reduce pollution.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 13, 2012 at 5:02am

That is correct.  However, the oil fields in ANWR are much less concentrated than the North Slope fields which feed the pipeline to the Port of Valdez, so exploration and drilling will be much more expensive -- basically smaller oil reservoirs and spread over a wider area.  In an interview in 2008, the Presdent of Exxon Mobile indicated that such a venture would be almost prohibitively expensive for the oil companies.  They would need taxpayers to build a new pipeline to meet up with the old one.  Since then, it has been discovered that the contractor which runs the original pipeline, BP, turned off the corrosion protection on the pipeline several years ago, to save money, and it has corroded to the point where it has a very short life time left before major sections of it will need to be replaced.  So, it is doubtful if we could even use that pipeline -- and if we did, it would take a very large repair effort.  Also, the President of Exxon Mobile indicated that even if they did start exploration in ANWR (only one well has ever been drilled there, by a local Native American Tribe -- so the "estimates" are just that) it would be a minimum of 10 years before the "first drop of refined product" would get to consumers.

 

The oil industry is basically very interested in political advertising so that they can convince the public to get congress to open up ANWR.  However, with the cost of oil from other places on earth so low, they have no intention of drilling there any time in the near future -- they just want to get the legislation passed, so that when the price does go up high enough (10 or 20 years in the future), they will be able to do so.  But, only if taxpayers are willing to foot the bill for a new pipeline.

 

If, instead, we used the next ten years building wind energy systems, and continued buying hybrid and electric cars, and started the changeover to electric passenger and freight rail, we would be much better off.  The Department of Energy goal is to get to 20% renewable energy by 2030.  At that rate, in 10 years, we would have enough wind energy installed to offset $156 billion worth of imported fossil fuel -- each year.  Just one years production of wind energy powering automobiles and passenger and freight rail, would offset all of the total ANWR oil low estimate, and two years of wind energy production would offset nearly all of the total ANWR oil high estimate.

Not to get too technical, but the United States has a unique situation in the Great Plains.  It is called the Low Level Jet (LLJ).  LLJ's occur in small places in other parts of the world, but in the U.S. we have one that is perhaps as much as 500 miles wide.  It is because the Great Plains extends up into Canada and for thousands of miles there is a gently sloping plain uninterupted by any mountain ranges.  Relatively cool air flows down to the Gulf of Mexico, and warm moist air flows back up to replace it, at an altitude of around 500 meters.  This LLJ drags along with it, air below the 500 meters, which causes the wind velocity above the Great Plains to be higher than most other places on earth.

The Department of Energy is funding projects, now, to build taller wind towers which can put turbines up into that wind.  If we put turbines at altitudes of 150 meters to 250 meters, there are estimates that the wind energy resource is as much a 8X the amount of energy that the U.S. uses.  Much of that land is agricultural land, and the poverty rate in the agricultural industry is double that of the rest of the country.  When offered the opportunity to as much as double their annual income, by giving up about 4% of their land, most farmers and ranchers see that as a good thing.  Just that area of the U.S. could produce enough energy to make us an energy exporting country -- and, unlike oil, it will never run out, or go up in price.  The average farm is 431 acres according to the Department of Agriculture statistics.  A

Comment by David Ammerman on March 13, 2012 at 1:14am

The United States Department of Energy estimates that ANWR oil production between 2018 and 2030 would reduce the cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by an estimated $135 to $327 billion (2006 dollars), reducing the foreign trade deficit.

   Jerry this looks like a lot of $$$ to me, that could be used to pay down the national debt, create jobs, and fund alternative energy development. And it the Democrats and their liberal buddies that wouln'd let us do it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

 I say " A scooter in every driveway" H. Hoover  For around $1500 bucks you can get around at 80MPG. Oh but Obama wants to sell us $35,000 dollar cars.

PS. I hope oil goes to $8 a gallon and you get rich.

Comment by Jerry E. Jones on March 12, 2012 at 2:53pm

First, let me say that I'm not a Liberal -- my family, including me, have been Republicans for generations.  But, the issue of energy is not that simplistic, as to just start drilling.  The U.S. started the petroleum industry, and we've been drilling here for decades.  Virtually all of the easy to reach and low cost oil in the U.S. is long since gone.  My family has three wells on our property, which are not pumping.  They did pump them when the price of oil got to $180 a barrel.  The cost of producing oil and shipping it to the U.S. from other places (our two major importers are Canada and Mexico) is less than the cost to produce the oil here, in many cases.  The oil companies are purely profit driven -- as we want them to be in our capitalistic economic system.  If there was cheap oil in the U.S. (and there still is some, but not much), they would already be producing it.  I own a company, and I'd love to have fewer government intrusions into my business, just as the oil companies would.  But, government regulations of the oil business are not the problem and Washington can't just "flip a switch" and get oil produced.  The U.S. Petroleum Industry holds millions of acres of oil leases, on government land, in the U.S. which are not being produced today, because of cost.  Some of those leases are so old, they are getting ready to expire.  Once the price of gasoline reaches $6 to $7 a gallon, there will be plenty of drilling in the U.S. -- but not until then.  Oil companies simply do not produce oil at a net loss -- they're pretty smart about that.

Rather than waiting to see the effect on the U.S. economy that $7 a gallon gas will cause, I'd rather see us moving as quickly as possible to a non-petroleum based economy.  While the price of solar energy is still at the end-user scale, and probably will be for a while, wind energy is both low cost, and plentiful, and competitive for utility scale installation.  Just as we have subsidized coal and petroleum for decades, and continue to do so even today, the tiny subsidy for wind energy needs to be in place to promote this small, but growing industry.  Besides, there are millions of products that we produce from crude oil, that cannot be easily replaced -- so for the future of the U.S., I believe that we are doing both ourselves, and future generations, a terrible disservice by continuing to invest in oil.

Even at the peak rate of installation of wind energy systems back in 2008, it will take several decades for the U.S. to become a significant produced of wind energy in the world.  So, looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, we have to start investing now.  Otherwise, when $7 a gallon gasoline does get here, we don't want to be dependent on fossil fuels alone, and we will be if we don't invest there now.

Comment by David Ammerman on March 10, 2012 at 12:27pm

I'm tired of hearing liberals say that drilling for evil oil, won't bring down the price of it, and that it's a global commodity anyway. Would a reply like " Well I'd still rather be selling it than buying it" be a good come back.

Comment by John Paul Jones on February 25, 2012 at 4:17pm

People there is a clear and present danger to America and the World.

We have a jackass president who is doing everything possible to destroy this country.

We can't wait for the election.  Review this video, time is running out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGk5ETyOZVs&feature=g-upl&co...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page