This article explains it better than I ever could:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193487,00.html
Now do you believe me?
Because of past and current government policies,railroads are paying more for diesel fuel[:(!]!
The question is if these oil reserves were brought on-line what impact would they have on the world oil price. Unless the US moves from a market economy to managed economy the oil will still be subject to the world oil prices. With the price of oil at say $70/barrel what would it drop to with these additional sources of oil?
Nothing like getting the straight scope from old Fair and Balanced.
It’s a sad commentary on our news media when people are so shocked by what comes out from an impartial source that it actually appears (to them, the uninformed) to be right wing-biased.
In the early 1990’s we imported 40% of our oil. By the year 2000 we imported 60%. Whats that tell you?
Now lets talk trains![:(!]
A little background on Steve Milloy, the author of the article cited by our house expert on everything.
Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its “primary contact” on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer.
Finding that good science bashing could generate a lucerative income from corporate sponsors and individuals with agendas damaged by the conclusions of sound scientific research, Milloy either set up or participated in the set up of many PR organizations aimed at disputing scientific claims.
He now publishes junkscience.com. If you believe that scientists are always wrong, that the Earth is flat and the Moon is made out of green cheese, he will be happy to accept your support for a minimum of $25, through PayPal if you like, and you will receive a junkscience mug. (While supplies last.)
For more interesting comments on Milloy see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
Huh…next the silly junk scientists are going to be telling us smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, and over exposure to direct sunlight causes skin cancer…
Thanks, Dave, for showing us the way, I was almost ready to believe the Lancet and the AMA…I bet they are published by junk scientists too.
Whew, I feel better, guess I can take a carton of Marlborough and a case of Bud and go get a good sunburn this afternoon.
[8D]Ed
One: what does this have to do with railfanning?
Two: It is an established fact that the amount of oil generated by ANWAR wouldn’t even have a dent in our energy needs. It would however produce enourmous contracts for the construction of oil rigs, refineries, and other related infrastrcuture neccessary to exploit it. Haliburton anybody?
And what do you do about Shell and BP, both foreign owned with very large U.S. operations with long term production leases? ‘Energy Independence’ is being way oversold by both parties. Nationalizing U.S. production or turning it into some kind of public utility might occur in an extreme emergency such as an exchange of nukes in the Middle East. Even if US production and pricing where somehow disconnected from the International market, why would anyone want to continue to drill here and sell at low prices as opposed to drilling in Canada and selling Internationally?
Less Fox and CNN - more CNBC. Gold, Silver, Copper, and Oil are all at record levels in part because hedge funds and big dollar high risk investors are putting a lot of money in commodities right now. Treasury Secy Snow talking down the dollar on Friday was about the last thing those markets needed. I’m beginning to suspect there’s a real fear about shortages and gas lines caused by the Ethanol changeover and the panic buying that would result. High prices may be considered the lesser of two evils. I’m also wondering what people are paying in China and India. In Iraq the price is 40 cents a gallon.
A little more on topic, I heard that the guy who owns Virgin Airlines is looking to buy a small oil company. I wonder if those railroads that sold off their energy subsidiaries are regretting that decision about now.
An impartial source?
I thought he was quoting from the old Fair & Balanced (Fox news) [(-D]
FM:
I agree about the BS regarding the RFG fiasco, but do you really think it is necessary to ravage what little pristine nature we have left, just so people from the US can continue in their wasteful ways?
The silver lining of this dark cloud of high gas prices is that perhaps enough people will begin to support (through letters to their representatives) alternative fuel research programs. Not that during the interim it makes it any easier for those people that cannot afford the high prices, nor the companies that must buy fuel for their vehicles (trains, trucks, planes).
Agreed, there is a lot of “junk” science, perpetrated by so-called scientists that have their own agenda or financial supporters. However, there are quite a few scientists that do real research, and the opinions and advice offered by them, the actual experts in their respective fields, should not be ignored.
As always, one must consider the source.
This is a topic death wish and a thread thats fated to be locked. Most of the oil deposits are scattered and are outside the 101 area by roughly 15 miles or so based on recent geological surveys completed by the federal goverment.Until recently, they were economically viable to extract but no great windfall, Some deposits were on the margins. Its afew months worth of fuel whether you drill or not. I am not a pessimistic person-we can solve this if we get real and the politicians stop posturing and work together. This whole alaskan controversy is a diversion and a result of decades of ignoring reality. Even Opec is pulling some stunts. They claim their reserves have gone up in volume while discovering no new fields-no one in the oil community takes them seriously. When production peaks in 2010, I assume they will have to go back to riding camels instead of bmw’s.
Our high gas prices of today are nothing more than a “supply and demand” story…i.e. we continually want to drive more in our bigger and more powerful vehicles (I include myself in that statement) and the oil producing nations know that and charge more for the oil we need to keep our cars and trucks (not to mention locomotives) running. The ONLY way to stop the spiraling price of gas is to use less. THE LOWER THE DEMAND, THE LOWER THE PRICE, PERIOD!
Consider the source…Fox News, kinda like believing Pravda in the 80’s
You can pump all the crude you want, theres no shortage of crude in the world, its refining where the bottleneck exists, and no oil company in their right mind is going to spend one red cent to build a new refinery. Why should they? Have you seen their profits last quarter? Thats the biggest incentive to do nothing. This is the best thing to happen to their shareholders and I’m sure they’de scream bloody murder if they voluntarilly offered to alter that profit stream. So that leaves Government to regulate and mandate changes to the oil industry, and with our current oil-freindly administration, I have a better chance of spending a wild orgie filled weekend with Selma Hyack before that happens. Dont forget our fearless leaders fought very hard for our current energy policy that did jack-didily-squat to address our dependancy on oil until it got so bad that even our ex-oilman president couldnt ignore it then had the gaul to essentially blame US for being "addictied"to oil, et tu Brutie, et tu!
vssmith-Its kinda like the candy store owner telling us to take better care of our teeth.
I wonder if there are any european railfans who read this forum and what their view is of the situation. When I was in Ireland and England and had a rental car for a couple of weeks I could not believe the pump price-I rented what could be considered a oversized golf cart to combat the fuel cost.
There’s an old adage that says “Consider the source.”
Without going too far into the dogmatic shouting-past-one-another on the relative merits or lack thereof of the arguments of global warming, energy policy or lack thereof, petroleum use, etc., let me point out one fact that goes largely unnoticed in the blanket condemnation of information sources simply because they accept monies from some (actually, make that ANY) corporate sponsors:
On average, any so-called “scientific panel,” investigative group, “watchdog group,” etc, is no less “on the take” than one that receives its funding from a corporate interest.
Consider the following: Entire corporations have arisen to advocate agendas and act as activist lobbies. Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, The Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the American Cancer Society, the National Rifle Association, Greenpeace, and others exist to advocate a position. They are filled with EMPLOYEES and EXECUTIVES who are as equa
Well, zardoz, you are the one voice or reason from the left of center as opposed to those who extoll more cultish and childish responses. The one point you made that needs to be expouned upon is this belief that undeveloped areas would be “ravaged” if oil development were allowed in those areas. Granted, past practices would portend more of the same in new areas, but today’s technology combined with more reasonable environmental awareness would greatly limited any factual ecological damage.
jeaton - notice how you instantly try to attack the credibility of the source rather than addressing the points made regarding the link between environmental extremism and reduced domestic oil production. Then you throw in flat earth and cheesy moon references. Very cultish on your part, and very childish.
vsmith - I actually agree with you in part (gasp!) regarding our President using catch phrases such as “addiction to oil”, when what he should be saying is “too much dependency on unfriendly sources of oil”. Clarity of statements makes all the difference. Because we are not “addicted” to oil, it’s just the cheapest source of energy for transportation right now even with the oil price speculation. If oil prices get high enough, other sources of powering our transportation system will come into play. However, I am amused by your complaint that oil companies aren’t building new refineries. I guess you haven’t yet made the connection between strict environmental laws and the subsequent unprofitability regarding the construction of new refineries. Do you have any idea how long it would take just to come up with an acceptable EIS for such a project? Hint: It would take more years to develop an EIS that is acceptable to all agencies and environmental groups than it would for the actual construction itself. It would take less time for ANWR oil to make it’s way down to current US refineries than it would take to get approval for a new refinery to get built. Tell me, what kind of investor would
Futuremodal-
I’m going OT on your OT-
This may interest you.
http://www.opg.com/niagaratunnel/ntp_bor.asp
Futuremodal, your last paragraph is entirely untrue.
No doubt evironmentalism was carried to far in the 90s. But what hasn’t been?
See LNER’s post. Now things are going too far the other direction.
Fact: Environmental regulation is responsible for just as many projects as it prevents. Projects preformed by private companies for a profit (capitalism anybody).
Examples: Cleanup of superfund sites, retrofitting powerplants to meet new standards, and construction of entirely new facilities to replace old ones. Water and wastewater treatment facilities (who needs clean water?), asbestos abatement projects, indoor air quality upgrades in buildings, shoreline impovement and stabilization work, levee and dam construction. etc.
We are not doomed from environmental regulation futuremodal. We will be doomed if oil is the only cheap energy source we develop.
To try to steer this back to something more civilized, while I strongly disagree with your politics, I do agree that milwaukee and northwestern would have been cool. Milwaukee and Grand Trunk on the other hand would have been (and was for a short time) profitable!
Throwing my 2 cents worth in:
Can anyone tell me how much diesel fuel railroads use? I know it’s kind of difficult but why hasn’t anyone thought about a plan to electrify railways in the U.S.?
Regards IGN