Who In The Hell Is Behind $5 Gas?

Doug Ross @ Journal ^ | June 7, 2008 | Doug Ross

[alloysteel]

The one, laser-sharp, defining issue that ALL Republican candidates for offices at every level could use to make the differences between themselves and their Democrat rivals unmistakably clear, and the one that could get them elected, even if it were only to the office of dogcatcher, is to hammer on this policy of forcing an artificial scarcity upon the American public, with the intention of keeping energy prices at historically high levels.

The artificial restrictions (on drilling, refining, and siting fuel stations) added to resistance to exploiting other forms of fossil or certain kinds of renewable energy, and now this carbon “cap and trade” scheme, which is a form or rationing, or even limitation to growth, are all aimed at denying YOU, the individual, the right to expand and attain the kind of wealth that is held up as a paragon of some kind, else why would anybody admire a rock star? It is because the rock star is RICH, among his (or her) other charms, and certainly not because of moral superiority or a clever intellect.

It is one thing to be poor by choice, but to be poor because of an enforced policy, is no better than involuntary servitude, always at the mercy of the controllers of access to energy, condemned for years if not a lifetime, of always being beholden to another without ever having had a choice in the matter.

One choice that SHOULD be made available, is the right to vote for this economic freedom. But so far, the Republicans seem unwilling to offer the option, or if they do, they are reluctant to press the advantage.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

It will be interesting to see what happens in May 2009 when gas goes up as it always does in May. Will they blame Bush? Will they blame Republicans?
Most likely, the media will totally ignore the price rise.

[lilylangtree]

Just like the phony CA energy crisis, it’ll take about 4-5 years after the torture of the $5 a gallon gas to find the REAL culprits.

[DaveTesla]

What do you think of this?

Methane hydrate deposits are vast potential energy source; researchers had problems with a consistent flow of thawed gas

Apr 16, 2008 04:25 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

A remote drilling rig high in the Mackenzie Delta has become the site of a breakthrough that could one day revolutionize the world's energy supply.

For the first time, Canadian and Japanese researchers have managed to efficiently produce a constant stream of natural gas from ice-like gas hydrates that, worldwide, dwarf all known fossil fuel deposits combined.

“We were able to sustain flow,” said Scott Dallimore, the Geological Survey of Canada researcher in charge of the remote Mallik drilling program. “It worked.”

For a decade now, Dallimore and scientists from a half-dozen other countries have been returning to a site on Richards Island on the very northwestern tip of the Northwest Territories to study methane gas hydrates.

A hydrate is created when a molecule of gas – in this case, methane or natural gas – is trapped by high pressures and low temperatures inside a cage of water molecules. The result is almost – but not quite – ice. It's more like a dry, white slush suffusing the sand and gravel 1,000 metres beneath the Mallik rig.

Heat or unsqueeze the hydrate and gas is released. Hold a core sample to your ear and it hisses.

More significant is the fact that gas hydrates concentrate 164 times the energy of the same amount of natural gas.



http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/415215
(A must read as gas to liquid processes can use these reserves with a short time to market)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2027596/posts

[alloysteel]

Methane Hydrate exists not only in the sedimentary layers in the Arctic region, but also on the ocean floor all around our continental shelf. The conditions there, a steady temperature of about 38 degrees Fahrenheit, and at a depth of 500-1,000 meters (about 16,00 to 3,200 feet), the formation of Methane Hydrate goes on apace.

There is always some methane dissolved in water, from the decomposition of other organic material in the ocean, so the Methane Hydrate is being produced continuously, probably more rapidly than mankind could ever possibly harvest it. And we could harvest the stuff from the sediment, by a specialized dredging device, that skims the top of the interface between saline water and the Methane Hydrate deposits (which are just slightly higher in density than saline water), then transporting the dredge material up to a submarine decompression tank, releasing the natural gas and sending it to a compressor system, making liquified natural gas (LNG) for transport.

I can see this being done of a vast industrial scale, equal to the output of any number of natural gas fields elsewhere, with what could be a LOWER investment than an offshore drilling platform. No actual drilling is involved, just location and recovery of the existing Methane Hydrate beds.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought it took 60 votes to filibuster. How are the dems doing that without help?

It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. When is the last time the Republicans had 60 in the Senate?

[Bommer]

[MNJohnnie]

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GAS_TAX_MAP_JANUARY_2008_2.pdf

Map of current taxes per gallon in each state

[MNJohnnie]

and this administration has done nothing that is effective for nuclear.

Yeah only a 30% increase in reactors to be built and relicensed 60% of the existing plants. but that is "nothing effective" in the Freeper world. Anything less then 100% perfection is "nothing that is effective" in our brave new "whine until we face a 60 Seat Democrat Senate" Conservative movement.

[raybbr]

It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. When is the last time the Republicans had 60 in the Senate?

Point for you!

It doesn't matter. They had six years of control knowing this was coming. They did nothing. They let the dem minority run circles around them.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't matter. They had six years of control knowing this was coming.

I agree. They should have made the Dems filibuster for real. Hard to do when the Rinos vote with the Dems on ANWR.

[Bommer]

It doesn't matter. They had six years of control knowing this was coming. They did nothing. They let the dem minority run circles around them.

I still think that is the point. unless there are 60 members to break a filabuster, its dad. The Republicans never had enough to break it. Now they are using the same technique on Democraps as the minority by blocking the Warner/Lieberman Global Warming tax!

[raybbr]

I agree. They should have made the Dems filibuster for real.

Man, I said the so many times. Make them stand up there and stop the Senate!

Uh, wasn't it McCain who created the 'gang of 14' and entered into an agreement that a filibuster could be imposed simply by saying so?

[AndyJackson]

These mandates on corn-based and other bio fuels are terrible policy. I am baffled by Bush's support for these mandates.

I'm not. Bush is a go along to get along kind of guy and there is no better crowd to go along with here in DC than the ADM and ag lobbyists. It is sad that this is what passes for Republican energy policy, but it is not baffling in the least. This is part of why pubbies are getting tossed out on their nether anatomies.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uh, wasn't it McCain who created the 'gang of 14' and entered into an agreement that a filibuster could be imposed simply by saying so?

AFAIK, they've had that kind of filibuster for decades.

[AndyJackson]

only a 30% increase in reactors to be built and relicensed 60% of the existing plants.

Reactors are licensed through the NRC in a standard regulatory procedure. The administration trying to take credit for this is like trying to take credit for DMV issuing drivers licenses.

While pending license applications are increasing, unless there is new news in the last few weeks there has not been an actual construction order yet. One is very hopeful that the logjam will break soon, but we need to be builing 40-50 per year, not onsies and twosies.

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah facts are such inconvenient things are they not?

There you are all set up for a good “why I hate the GOP” rant only to discover the facts do not bear out your dogma. Sucks to be you.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200719.html

[raybbr]

Hey thanks for the link

Of the 30 countries with nuclear power, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear ranged widely: from a high of 78 percent in France; to 54 percent in Belgium; 39 percent in Republic of Korea; 37 percent in Switzerland; 30 percent in Japan; 19 percent in the USA; 16 percent in Russia; 4 percent in South Africa; and 2 percent in China.

Ooohhh! A whopping 19 percent. Yeah, American ingenuity.

[raybbr]

There are also nuclear expansion programmes in Finland, France, Bulgaria and Ukraine. Finland started construction in 2005 on Olkiluoto-3, which is the first new Western European construction since 1991. France plans to start its next plant in 2007.

Several countries with nuclear power are still pondering future plans. The UK, with 19 operating plants, many of which are relatively old, had been the most uncertain until recently. Although a final policy decision on nuclear power will await the results of a public consultation now underway, a White Paper on energy published in May 20071/ concluded that "...having reviewed the evidence and information available we believe that the advantages [of new nuclear power] outweigh the disadvantages and that the disadvantages can be effectively managed. On this basis, the Government´s preliminary view is that it is in the public´s interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new nuclear power stations."

The US had 103 reactors providing 19 percent of the country´s electricity. For the last few decades the main developments have been improved capacity factors, power increases at existing plants and license renewals. Currently 48 reactors have already received 20-year renewals, so their licensed lifetimes are 60 years. Altogether three-quarters of the US reactors either already have license renewals, have applied for them, or have stated their intention to apply. There have been a lot of announced intentions (about 30 new reactors´ worth) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now reviewing four Early Site Permit applications.

So, everyone else is on the road to building new plants except the U.S.

There have been a lot of announced intentions (about 30 new reactors´ worth) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now reviewing four Early Site Permit applications.

Announced intentions! Awesome dude! We are well on our way to energy indep......

Wait. That still means that there are no plans. No sites. No permits. No approvals.

You are too easy.

[AndyJackson]

Announced intentions!

Which is a whole lot different from $3Billion in bonds sold, contracts signed and bulldozers digging. Every time I get into trouble with Mrs. Jackson I also announce intentions. Doesn't keep me out of the doghouse.