Posted by hemlock1262 on July 7, 2008 at 5:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does Terry Paulson actually know what a fact is?

Nary a drop spilled in Katrina? Dude, the oil slick was visible from SPACE!

And before you go citing Britain and Norway as examples, let's bear in mind that those are totally regulated by the British and Norwegian governments, which is why they're safe. The Brits and Norwegians don't "trust the market" to do what's right -- are you advocating a government monopoly?

And it's not Democrats who say it will take 10 years to get oil from ANWR -- it's the bloody Department of Energy, you moron!

And as far as nuclear energy goes, the same thing applies -- in Europe nuclear energy is produced by government monopolies, with standardized designs and construction techniques. In France, incidentally, the system was designed by retired U.S. Navy officers, acolytes of the great Hyman Rickover.

So before you go running off at the mouth anymore, why don't you actually learn something?

Sheesh! Why couldn't the Star have dumped this dreck as part of its improvements. Every issue with Terry Paulson isn't even suitable for the wrapping of fish.

Posted by laurarmc on July 7, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hemlock:

You posted just about everything that I would've said.

As for CAFE standards, it's true that inaction led to increased consumption while the auto manufacturers built heavier, thirstier cars. We reversed all the progress we had made.
Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle were joined by the manufacturers and the unions in opposition to increased CAFE standards.

Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Same ol' comments from same ol' idiots.

Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One thing you can be sure about Paulson, he either does not know his facts or deliberately misleads his readers. Please see what Shell's CEO John Hoffmeister really says about oil. He is on Charlie Rose in webcast. Shell has been in trouble because it can't keep its oil reserves from depleting. This is not a US issue, its a global issue and persists despite the fact that Shell drills everywhere - in countries where the governments have no environmental restrictions. The fact is, and Shell, Chevron, and BP keep repeating it, that we are having trouble matching growing demand with available supplies. Oil is finite folks - time to transition away from oil now! Paulson, needs to climb back into his 1950s time capsule and stop his misinformation. Why does the Star keep having this ingnorant writer pump out nonsense? He has no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who want a more rigorous writeup on energy policy, try this New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/bus...

Note, the chart of fuel economy standards. Obama is not offtrack if he is calling for 50 mpg cars. The EU already have requirements in the 40 mpg range. The US standards are even lower than China's. Paulson's intent seems to be to keep the public clueless by writing nonsense.

Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rwhite,

Did you check the links I provided? Do you have any specific comments on what you read or heard in the John Hoffmeister webcast on Charlie Rose? Do you not believe the data provided on CAFE standards in the countries referenced in the NYT article? I really would like to understand your views more clearly.

Cheers my friend.

Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

market and RWHITE --- You also have to consider the source. Market is using the New York Times. As for your question up above, jw wins.

Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rwhite,

You say that there is "No need to read the links posted by a liberal". How then do you continue to learn and challenge your own views to ensure you are on the right track?

Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jw---quit sitting on your excuse for brains and climb back into your tree. Then grab the vine and do your trick.

Posted by sslocal on July 7, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Um, remember the article?

Sounds like a good plan.

Posted by jeff93024 on July 7, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, Terry, it's all the fault of Democrats, Liberals, and environmentalists. Not a bit of the blame can be placed upon the millions and millions of idiots who purchased and drove gas-guzzling pigmobiles and continued to behave as if there would never be an end to the supply of oil.

You know what I'm hoping for? $10-a-gallon-gas. Maybe that'll bash some common sense into the people who feel that their families need to own 20 different kinds of vehicles, from personal watercraft to snowmobiles to ATVs to dirt bikes to dune buggies to giant Tonka Toy pickup trucks. If $10-a-gallon gas doesn't do the trick, then let's go for $15.

Posted by marketrealist on July 7, 2008 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rwhite - thanks for the clarification on how you operate.

Mike - you don't like the New York Times. I recall you did not like the Los Angeles Times or National Public Radio from a previous post. So what do you feel are trustworthy sources of news?

Posted by jeff93024 on July 7, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jw1000:

Most of the people who are doing the most complaining about the price of gas are driving big gas-guzzling vehicles that they don't really need to drive. By that I mean that they don't have to use these vehicles, out of necessity, in their profession -- they just drive them to show how affluent and important and connected (they think) they are. Right now, though, the irritated looking SOB driving the Hummer is just wheeling around with a great big neon sign on his roof that says "MORON", and you can tell by the look on his face that he knows it. These are the gullible feebs who bet on D**k Cheney and lost.

I hope that Terry has one of those enormous diesel motorhomes that currently takes about $500 to fill up. Better hurry up and fill that thing soon, Terry -- in another month it'll cost you about $650.

PS:
Dear Ventura County Star: Thank you for insisting that the Vice-President's first name is obscene. A lot of us have always felt that way, too.

Posted by Tonic_Writes on July 7, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone proposing drilling should post what they drive. This includes Terry Paulson. I have a hybrid, how about you? SUV? Pick up truck? Prius? I'm not categorically against expanding drilling but it needs to come with additional sacrifices, you need to ante up. I see my neighbors and co-workers drive to work every day in their F150s down the 101 to work in a cubicle. These people don't get to whine about high gas prices. If they want someone to blame they have only to look in the mirror. So let's talk about drilling... after you've posted what you drive and what you are willing to do to conserve.

Posted by keem_s on July 7, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The democrats have had the majority in the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi has been Speaker of the House for 2 years now and they haven't done squat to solve this nation's long term energy problem.

There solution is so moronic, well just use less. Great, we won't have enough electricity to run our air conditioners in the summer time here in California because the Democratic controlled Senate and Legislature hasn't allowed enough new power plants to be built. California is becoming a third world country with an unreliable under powered utility system and you have the Democrats to thank for it.

CALISO is calling for a flex alert in California for the next 3 days because the anticipated demand for electricity is expected to exceed the supply. SUVs have nothing to do with it justa wacko 1000. The Democrats have everything to do with it.

Posted by mikeb6804 on July 7, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

market--you're right. I don't like the NYT or the LAT because of their decidedly liberal slant. And the NYT has been caught in too many examples of unethical reporting. I noticed on the news today the LA Times will be having further cutbacks/layoffs. Could it be people don't like their message? Most times it is hard to identify a publication I really like.
I thought I should add I also remember days of .19/gal gas and I do not drive a Hummer or gas-hogging SUV. That'll probably kill jw since he can't focus on anything else.

Posted by jeff93024 on July 7, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only problem with the Democrats in Congress is that there aren't quite enough of them to outvote the Republicans. That problem will be rectified in November.

The Republicans are the ones who have fallen down on the energy policy. They had 6 years of absolute total control. The Democrats were helpless; they couldn't outvote the Republicans. The Republicans could have done absolutely anything they wanted to do to make this nation energy independent. Nothing and nobody stood in their way. What did they do? Nothing. Not one single thing. We're where we are today because of Republicans. Think about that next time you fillup your gas tank. Remember that the Republicans had, at the very least, 6 years to do whatever they wanted, and they did nothing except try to convince people that EVERYTHING WAS OK. That's all they did, and nothing more.

Posted by Tonic_Writes on July 8, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, jeff93024, the Republicans did one thing: they fought California's attempt to increase fuel standards. They took action, just in the wrong direction. This is what gas costs now, get over it. It isn't going to go away any time soon. The rest of the world drives small fuel efficient cars and uses mass transit more than Americans do. We need to bite the bullet and quit whining. Start figuring out your transportation options and quit feeling it is your right to drive long distances by yourself in the privacy of your gas guzzler.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on July 8, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The rest of the world drives small fuel efficient cars and uses mass transit more than Americans do. We need to bite the bullet and quit whining. Start figuring out your transportation options and quit feeling it is your right to drive long distances by yourself in the privacy of your gas guzzler."

Having a brother who has lived in Germany for almost 10 years, he is now deciding to go through the process of being a car owner because public transportation has become so expensive that it is cheaper for him to drive his own vehicle. Europe is no longer the idealistic standard of efficient and low-cost mass transit that everyone makes it out to be. Last time I went there, I spent nearly 300 euros on public transportation costs for only 10 days of traveling.

Posted by Tonic_Writes on July 8, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't believe I claimed Europe was the idealistic anything. But you made my point for me. Obviously your brother has managed many years without a car - something most Americans can't even imagine. And I would bet that any car he is considering purchasing won't resemble a Humvee in the least. I don't have anything against car ownership but many of us have made ridiculous choices for our daily commute vehicles and part of that decision making process was naively assuming we could use as much gas as we wanted. I notice no one is posting what they drive as I requested earlier...

Posted by marketrealist on July 8, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike, Thanks for the input. What do you think of Washington Post or NPR/PBS? Is FoxNews on track? How about the talking heads - Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Limbaugh?

Posted by sslocal on July 8, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I drive a Toyota Tacoma. Gets about 26mpg's on the highway. Of course I only drive it three times a week.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on July 8, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not that it is anyones business... Saturn Vue, my avg MPG is around 25.

Why is it that Leftists like to make the assumption that republicans and conservatives all are gas guzzling SUV drivers. I actually heard a radio advertisement (on air america no less) implying that those who drive SUV's are war-mongering republicans, who don't care about the soldiers or the environment. What a surprise this must be for my neighbor who has an "Obama08" sticker on his hummer!

Those of you who are so high an mighty on the environment should really send mass mailers to your beloved Al Gore about his energy consumption since his carbon footprint is FAR bigger than what the average American uses, SUV or not.

Posted by Tonic_Writes on July 8, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow - must have hit a nerve with leahb78_1999. Once again, you are assuming information not given. I never claimed to be a leftist, Democrat or Republican. And I never put any of those labels on any of the comments I responded to. I don't know the environmental or political affiliations of any of the people I mentioned: my neighbors and co-workers who drive gas guzzlers they don't really need to work every day. It simply defies common sense for those people to be calling for additional drilling if they are not also willing to make some sacrifices to conserve. Both things need to go together. Which is why I asked that if you think we need more drilling you should post what you drive and show that you have already made an effort to overcome high prices. Not just assume that you can use as much as you want and still have it cheap. Is that really so hard to understand? And how does that not cover both party's positions?

Posted by ebrockway on July 9, 2008 at 6:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tonic_Writes;
Ok fine! I drive a '97 Toyota Corolla with the small engine, gets good milage. AND we need to drill. Anyone spewing the "can't drill our way out of this" line needs to realize we can't tax our way out of it, drilling is a necessary evil. And the reason it'll take 10 years to get the juices flowing is all the liberal red tape tossed in the way of oil production.
Try not to be so smug about driving a hybrid, where you going to put those batteries when they need replacing? How many toxic by-products were created in their production? How's your milage driving to Las Vegas? Close to mine probably.

Posted by marketrealist on July 9, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We can't drill our way out of this.

The US hit peak oil production in 1970. From 1974 onwards we went into decline in production. This is well before there was an environmenntal movement or any restrictions on drilling in the US. ANWR is not going to make a dent in our US supply. Its a false hope. Go ahead and drill all you want, but I would be concerned that this would just give people a false sense of security. 54 out of 65 oil producing countries have hit peak production and on have declining production rates. The real question is how do we break our dependence on foreign oil by switching away from gasoline and diesel driven vehicles.

Posted by Minkster on July 9, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like the democrats are finally pulling their head out of the sand (hopefully).

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOn...

Posted by sslocal on July 9, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting article Minkster.
We need to not only drill but explore other means of obtaining power. Oil is just the start. We need to get more wind power, more natural gas powered power plants, more solar on homes.
Well, you guys know the list by now. If we could just get congress, which BTW, has a 9% approval rate, to do something besides complain about the other side we might get somewhere.

Posted by Jimmys66 on July 9, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In order to affect change, we need to provide clear and concise demands to our political leaders. Basically we need to push for the following four initiatives.

1) Prominently increasing North American energy supplies, thereby increasing energy security (technologies include gasification; gas-to-liquids; tar sands, oil sands, and other heavy crude extractive and processing technologies)

2) Providing additional non-hydrocarbon supply options (ethanol, biodiesel, wind, and solar)

3) Moving towards globalizing a regionally limited natural-gas market to reduce risks associated with supply and price

4) Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (new emission-free supplies such as nuclear, wind, solar; more efficient end-use technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and advanced technology vehicles; reduced emissions from hydrocarbon usage such as coal gasification, cogeneration and deployment of CO2 capture and sequestration technologies and strategies).

See more details at: http://www.z-car.com/public-policy/

Posted by Minkster on July 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The number one thing we need to do IMO is become energy independent before it (energy dependence) becomes an economic and national security crisis. However we do it doesn't matter so much as that we do it. Until that happens, this country (and our economy) will be reactive (as we are now) vice proactive domestically and internationally, and can possibility be held hostage or isolated (economically) by supplier nations/countries/sects putting forth international policies/agendas that might not be in our best national interest.

Posted by allblacks on July 9, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From MSNBC 19 Sep 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9365607/
"The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana...Nearly all of the oil leaked near the Mississippi River south of New Orleans and was contained by earthenberms designed for that purpose, said Capt. Frank Paskewich, federal on-scene coordinator for the Coast Guard. Any oil that escaped the berms flowed inland, away from the river levees. Only a few minor oil sheens, thin enough to evaporate in the sun, have appeared on the river so far, he said, and they probably came from small watercraft that sank in the storm...As for oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Paskewich said the Coast Guard has fielded no reports of offshore spills there, though leaks could spring when the thousands of oil platforms and hundreds of miles of pipeline are restarted. Last year, Hurricane Ivan was responsible for oil spills in the Gulf, he said."

Posted by marketrealist on July 10, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jimmy, couple of comments on your list.

1. It does not include the most important component - energy efficiency. Denmark, Japan, and many other Western European countries use half the energy to create one dollar of GDP. Their cars get twice the miles per liter of gasoline. We have much more energy to be had by efficiency than all other options in the near term. This resources is hthe lowest hanging fruit.

2. Your first option for energy - tar sands, coal to liquids, heavy oils, etc. is not an option if we want to meet climate change greenhouse gas reduction targets. These are extremely carbon intensive options. So, to meet California, and soon national targets for GHG, these options like tar sands, coal to liquids, etc, are challenging to say the least.