Senate Republicans are laying down the gauntlet.

It’s nice to see Republicans show some cojones for once. They seem so content to just meekly accept whatever BS Democrats hand them, so this was music to my ears!

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

The hardball tactics reflect Republican confidence that they can pull off a major election-year victory with gas prices at record highs, after they have been battered at the polls and have lost on several recent high-profile legislative battles.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) planned for the Senate this week to pass a bill targeting market speculation on oil futures, which both sides blame for playing a role in driving up gasoline prices.

Following swift Senate action on the narrow energy bill, Reid wanted the Senate to approve a massive defense authorization bill, an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, legislation to protect reporters’ sources, an extension of expiring energy tax incentives, and a major package of 33 bills held up by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

But Republicans are planning to keep the Senate on the energy issue until their demands are resolved. The massive housing-rescue package might be the only other measure that gets valuable floor time before the August recess.

Democrats say the GOP is intentionally prolonging the debate in order to score political points by insisting on more than two dozen amendments to the oil-speculation bill. Democrats, who say opening up new lands won’t affect prices for a decade and are concerned about its environmental impacts, have offered the GOP one amendment to the oil-speculation bill.

But the GOP is positioning itself as the party willing to do whatever it takes to lower gas prices. The Republicans say Democrats are scared to cast votes on new drilling in the face of voter anger over high gasoline prices, and they point to the majority’s decision to scrap appropriations bills to avoid a debate over lifting the congressional ban on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf.

McConnell said the Senate will be in session in September and will have time then to finish outstanding issues.

“Our goal is to stay on the subject that the American people are demanding that we do something about and finish the job,” McConnell said.
Of course, this probably isn’t that big a deal to Senate Democrats, as they’re pretty much doing jack right now anyway. But doing this is a brilliant move for Republicans. It puts major pressure on Democrats to finally act, something they’re reluctant to do for God knows what reason. I can only speculate, but my guess would be that it’s because Democrats are anxious to make things are miserable for Americans as possible in hopes of gaining victory in November. They couldn’t possibly act to improve the lives of American citizens when it’s an election year!

The thing is, people are paying twice as much for gas as they were before Democrats seized control of Congress. Democrats know that this is a major issue, but they’ve invested in the anti-drilling position. Yet two-thirds of voters support domestic drilling, and Democrats don’t want to go home to their angry constituents as the Senator who voted against offshore drilling. So the solution is simply to do nothing, to take no action whatsoever and find excuses for their failure to take action. They’ve done nothing but block production while doling out empty promise after empty promise for decades, and time is now up. The ultimatum brought forth by Republicans was a genius move, and, if Reid & Co are smart, it will force Democrats to finally face the issue.

Americans overwhelmingly are for domestic drilling and energy independence. It’s time for Democrats to decide whether or not they truly want energy independence or not. No more pussy-footing around the issue. The buck stops here.

Ever heard of "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Tearjerker of the Day: Eight-year-old "marries" his childhood sweetheart the day before he dies.
  • Mac Lorry

    On the drilling issue republicans should use the lines democrats have been using to attack Bush. The no drill position of democrats is a “failed policy of the past” and it’s “time for real change”. Also, bring up the democrats kowtowing to special interest environmental groups. It’s the no drill policy that’s responsible for sending 700 billion to foreign governments every year. Until we develop better alternatives, the oil we use should be coming from domestic supplies as much as possible.

  • Dave

    Has anybody thought about what an easy target offshore drilling rigs are for terrorist? Its a disaster waiting waiting to happen.

  • Ted

    Dave’s right. We should stop building skyscrapers, dams, power plants, cargo ships…

  • Dave – “Has anybody thought about what an easy target offshore drilling rigs are for terrorist? Its a disaster waiting waiting to happen.”

    Yepper… just think of all those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico with literally dozens, I repeat… DOZENS of people working on them.

    As opposed to say… the WTC that had potentially 10’s of thousands or the Sears Tower that has about the same.

    Thanks Dave, surely the stupid terrorists will see the error of their ways!

    /sarc off

  • Dave

    1. A terrorist would not have to enter the US to blow up an oil rig.

    2. The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper, dam, power plant or cargo ship.

  • Unfortunately, this is all just politics and not any short term solution to immediate gas price problems. Gas will unfortunately hit $7 to $10 a gallon long before any new drilling brings new oil. It sounds good to voters, even if it may never provide them a drop of oil. The process of oil exploration, drilling and refining will take every day of ten years before any motorist will see a drop of oil from any new off-shore drilling sites.

    In 10 years, the internal combusion engine may also be well on the way out as the fuel cell automobile may become more possible by that time. Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens is advancing a plan to use natural gas to power new cars as natural gas only costs the equal of $1 a gallon by comparison to gas.

    Even though I have no problem affording gas myself, I like to drive fuel efficient motorbikes most of the time rather than the big 16mpg Oldsmobile. I got 94mpg with a four stroke motorbike, and about 50mpg in a more powerful and faster two stroke model. I don’t know of any automobile that even comes close to 94mpg. You can carry two bags of groceries in one model and three bags of groceries in the larger model. You can drive any of these motorbikes all through the city, because either can go at least 40-45mph. The faster one can go as high as 70mph with some high performance add-on parts. You hardly ever see ads for such high mileage forms of transportation like this because most Americans still believe in the big and heavy car and are unwilling to trade in four wheels for a two-wheeler like a motorcycle or scooter as of yet. But when you can drive one to two weeks on just one gallon of gas, then it is time to at least consider a two-wheeler of some sort if you’re healthy and attentive enough to drive one. Driving for up to two weeks on one $4 gallon of gas is a pretty good deal, in my opinion.

  • Dave

    Yepper… just think of all those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico with literally dozens, I repeat… DOZENS of people working on them.

    Its not about the number of people. Al Queda has said their plan was to economically ruin the US through terror attacks.

  • Dave

    Paul,

    What kind of bike do you ride?

  • Dave

    I just read that Royal Dutch Shell just shut down an oil rig in Nigeria. It was attacked by terrorist about a month ago.

    http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=56456

    Odd how we don’t read about stuff like that in the U.S. Especially since a U.S. Captain was kidnapped during the attack.

  • “The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper…”

    Dave, when did you stop trying?

    Do you think there’s nothing finished at Ground Zero in NYC 7 years later just because they couldn’t decide on a design?

    Meanwhile, the most crossed bridge in Minnesota(I-35W in Minneapolis) will be back in service just 13 months after it fell.

    http://projects.dot.state.mn.us/35wbridge/index.html

    According to a state government website, the economic impact has been a net loss of about $60 million. How much was lost at the WTC on 9/11? The point is is that an oil rig miles away from shore can be reconstructed for a much lower cost than a skyscraper. Don’t worry Dave. There’s a lot more things you can wrong about, if you just keep trying.

  • Dave

    Here’s a direct quote from Al Qaeda

    “We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States”

    Article:
    Big Cities’ Oil Sectors Top Targets for Terror

  • House Republicans are taking this serious as well — The American Energy Act (HR 6566):

    a comprehensive energy bill that takes an “all of the above” strategy to end our dependence on costly foreign oil and reduce gas prices in America. At a Capitol Hill news conference this afternoon, the Members of Congress will also demand Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi end her opposition to American-made energy and allow a vote on the bill.

    With $4 gas prices this can gain massive support if they can get the media to stop their Obamadrooling for three minutes or so!
    David

  • Dave –

    We had a LOT of oil rigs damaged and sunk and blown ashore during Katrina. The oil industry went “Shit happens” and rebuilt. That’s what insurance is for, and safety valves and cutoffs.

    Terrorists trying to take out an oil rig with a boatload of explosives? Well, you really need to confine an explosion for best effect – and most oil rigs at sea level are both pretty open AND made of pretty thick steel. You might bend a leg some – but chances are it’s not going to sink unless you’ve got a chance to get on and set numerous charges in strategic places – and there you’re going to run into another problem.

    Now, I don’t know about you but having known a couple of roughnecks I pity the terrorists who try to take over an oil rig – the oil workers have got a LOT of good improvised weapons handy, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if most of them have rifles on hand for target practice on sharks and such.

    And the roughnecks will be just plain PISSED when they figure out what’s going on.

    As far as the media ignoring the piracy aspect of the captain of the oil ship being taken hostage – would you REALLY expect them to report that? It’s really, really hard to put a PC spin on something like that. Much better to ignore it completely.

  • 2. The economic cost of blowing up an oil rig would probably be about 1000 times greater then blowing up a skyscaper, dam, power plant or cargo ship.

    You sure about that number, Dave?

  • Dave

    The point is is that an oil rig miles away from shore can be reconstructed for a much lower cost than a skyscraper.

    Not when you add the cost of clean up and other business’s affected. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground it spilled 250,000 barrels and cost $2.5 billion to clean up. That does not include the cost of other business’s that were impacted by the pollution such as fishermen.

    But that was just an oil tanker with a fixed amount of oil in it. Imagine if its a well? Will it even be possible to shut it off after an attack or will it just keep gushing until the oil runs dry.

  • Dave

    We had a LOT of oil rigs damaged and sunk and blown ashore during Katrina. The oil industry went “Shit happens” and rebuilt. That’s what insurance is for, and safety valves and cutoffs.

    The safety valves were shut off before the storm hit. Since terrorist do not give advance warning they will be usesless.

    I don’t know if insurance covers terrorist attacks, but thats a moot point because the entire country would suffer great economic hardship and the insurance would only go to the owner of the rig.

  • I don’t know if insurance covers terrorist attacks

    They do.

    thats a moot point because the entire country would suffer great economic hardship and the insurance would only go to the owner of the rig.

    No, Dave, all offshore producers carry, in addition to other coverage, pollution coverage that will cover damages to other property. Dave, do you have any knowledge of business liability insurance, pollution insurance and bonding?

  • Brian

    Yay! With the Bush Dept. of Energy saying that ANWR drilling will result in a $.75 drop in the price of oil (not gas) in 17 years, this obstructionist obstinance will hand the Dems more wins in November! Woo-hoo!

  • Dave

    I said I didn’t know if oil rigs are covered. But its a moot point because the drain on the economy would essentially be the same even if it is covered. I don’t have time to explain this to you now if you don’t understand.

  • Dave

    The above was in response to #17.

  • Oyster

    I would like to see something in that legislation to promote further research and development for alternative energy in conjunction with allowing more drilling. After all, our goal is to wean ourselves off foreign oil permanently. I’d like to hear what, if any, plans there are.

    And Dave, dude, give it up.

  • Dave –

    I really don’t see the point behind trying to have a conversation with you. Ever hear of a blowout protector? Have any idea of the maze of safety features used in oil drilling at sea BECAUSE of the chances of a pipe rupturing? Or the ability to see at quite a distance boats and ships approaching an oil rig?

    You think the guys on the rig aren’t going to fight back?

    You have ANY idea of the changes in design to prevent something like the Valdez happening again? Or are you determinedly ignorant, preferring instead to cling to your fantasies of ultrapowerful terrorists against helpless, delicate, cowering oil rig workers, afraid they might (horror of horrors!) ruin their manicures if they tried to fight the terrorists?

    Yeah. Dream on, bud.

  • Great comedy Dave. Are you doing parody of liberal positions? If you are, you’re doing an awesome job!

  • Dave

    HughS,

    No, Dave, all offshore producers carry, in addition to other coverage, pollution coverage that will cover damages to other property. Dave, do you have any knowledge of business liability insurance, pollution insurance and bonding?

    Provide a link that proves oil rigs are covered by terrorist attack? Otherwise your talking out of your a$$.

  • But its a moot point because the drain on the economy would essentially be the same even if it is covered.

    Dave
    You obviously understand nothing about insurance, or reinsurance.

    Liability coverage for off shore rigs is a risk distributed globally. Ever heard of Lloyd’s?

    No domestic insurance company would ever accept that type of risk in whole. They always transfer the risk via reinsurance and hedging.

    Pick your debates more carefully, Dave. You are out of your element on this topic.

  • nehemiah

    Dave,

    I do share your grave concerns about the endless oil that will gush out that will then only reduce gas by $0.75.

    The only thing that will allow me to sleep tonight is knowing that no muslim terrorist will attack their brother barack when he is president.

  • “Dave –

    I really don’t see the point behind trying to have a conversation with you.”

    Actually, I think Dave is having conversations with himself, and typing them out so we can share in them.

  • John F Not Kerry –

    Sad thing is – I don’t think he’s acting. He really is ignorant of the technology involved and the economics, preferring instead to trot out talking points and bumper stickers.

    I don’t see much point in trying to educate him. The night’s too short and he already knows everything – so how can anything contrary to his beliefs penetrate?

  • John F Not Kerry #27 –

    Okay… hadn’t thought of it like that. It seems more like a kid trying to come up with something, ANYTHING, that would get him some adult attention.

  • #21 – Oyster –

    There’s a couple of interesting things that may be coming down in the next couple of years.

    There’s Emc2 Fusion – apparently reading between the lines their WB-7 prototype is working pretty well (discussion board here – they get deep into the math of it) and the next step might be a 100 MW prototype. If their results scale up the way they expect, in 10 years oil will be useful as a chemical feedstock and fuel for antique cars, but that’ll be about it and we’ll be weaning ourselves off gasoline.

    Then there’s a company I could have sworn was a scam, Blacklight Power – which has really dubious physics but is apparently making 50KW heat output prototypes.

    I’m going to go with Murphy’s Law on that one – doesn’t matter what the theory is, if he’s getting reproducible output of more than he’s putting in, and willing to distribute prototypes – then maybe theory needs to be changed.

    Add in some of the advances in low-cost inkjet printed solar cells, and if I were an oil tick I’d be thinking about nuclear power. Oh, wait – they are.

  • Oyster

    JLawson, wow – the Emc2 stuff, in particular, was way over my head 🙂

  • Scrapiron

    Dave makes a perfect case (unintentional) for drilling in Alaska and processing oil shale in Co.
    The first person who says that drilling won’t help for 10 years within my earshot will be getting their a** off the ground. I’ll pay the assult fine. That is the most stupid argument to ever come from anyone so you know it came from the democrats and started about 30 years ago. 30 minus 10 = we would have had new oil supplies 20 years ago. Kindergarden math, too complicated for a democrat. If we never start, we will never get there. Think I’ll send that to Harry Reid, he might be able to find a third grader to read and explain it to him. Never mind Peeeloshi, Botox has killed her brain and made mush of her bug eyed face.

  • WildWillie

    Dave, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about but I am not surprised, you being a lefty and all. Oil rigs are totally safe. If pressure is released and the automation system senses it is too much, it will cap and shut down the drilling. Now, go about your juvenile ways and leave the grown ups alone. Anyone who thinks if a modern day rig depends on a guy with a wrench to shut it down is not intelligient enough to be here. Bye, bye. ww

  • Mac Lorry

    Paul,

    Unfortunately, this is all just politics and not any short term solution to immediate gas price problems. Gas will unfortunately hit $7 to $10 a gallon long before any new drilling brings new oil. It sounds good to voters, even if it may never provide them a drop of oil. The process of oil exploration, drilling and refining will take every day of ten years before any motorist will see a drop of oil from any new off-shore drilling sites.

    Democrats have been making this same argument against domestic drilling for over 20 years! It’s now obvious that argument has lead directly to the failed no drill policy, and it’s time for change. With polls showing 70 plus percent of Americans in favor of drilling, democrats have two choices, get out of the way of drilling or be moved out of the way by the American electorate. The domestic drilling issue could do to democrats in 2008 what the Iraq war issue did to republicans in 2006.

    Also, your statement is factually untrue in several areas. First, democrats think that speculation is responsible for driving up the price of oil and are trying to pass legislation to address it. Speculation is sensitive to any perceived change in supply or demand going out years into the future. Authorizing drilling would have a significant and immediate impact on the price of oil because no one wants to get caught in a bubble market when it bursts. Second, the current record for discovering offshore oil and bringing it to market is less than four years. That means we could have more domestic oil by the next presidential election.

    We need more domestic supply as a matter of national security. Besides the huge transfer of wealth, Iran is going to cause us trouble at some point and they are holding the US hostage with their threat of closing the straits of hormuz. Knowing how devastating that would be to the US emboldens Iran to reckless action. Liberals talk about not going to war over oil, but don’t want to take effective action to minimize that possibility. I’m holding those who oppose opening up domestic drilling responsible for any future war over oil, and I won’t be alone.

    Finally, we do need to move beyond oil, but only when alternative technology is developed enough to replace oil. Given the political reality of climate change, that means we need to go nuclear as well as develop wind, solar, and a viable electric powered transportation system. Anything less and our quality of life and our security as a nation will be threatened. That means congress must act to open Yucca mountain and fast track the nuclear permitting process as well as limiting court interference on the behalf of environmentalists.

  • Mac Lorry, I’m not opposed to off-shore drilling myself. But I’m just stating the fact that it will take up to ten years to actually see any new oil from such a process as exploration, drilling and building new refineries. But you do know that often most oil refineries have not worked near their peak for decades, even though demand was rising. And all the major oil companies own land that holds oil that they themselves have failed to build new drilling or refining sites on for decades. Creating less of the product than the demand levels has allowed the price to rise.

    Voters may favor new oil drilling, however it won’t solve the price or supply issue for years. Few voters understand that fact. In 10 years the internal combusion engine will likely be on the way out, as the automobile manufacturers will offer something that is economical to operate for their product survival. Look at how fast the computer industry grew up from nowhere in just the last 10 years.

    Right now, I drive my 50mpg CPI Oliver Sport 50 most of the time because I get about 50mpg and it can easily do 45mph, but can go up to 70mph with some aftermarket high perormance add-on parts like hesder muffler, racing head and piston, racing varator, etc. I only drive the big Oldsmobile for longer trips or bad weather. Since I can carry three bags of groceries on this bike, that is good enough if I’m purchasing most goods from grocery stores, etc. on a good weather day. The Coolster F5 I had got 94mpg, and could hold two bags og groceries, but I could hold a third in a field pack I keep under the seat. You top off the fuel with a gas can since you use so little gas with either bike.

    Most Americans are unwilling to go to motorcycles or motor scooters for transportation and are now opting for public transportation or hanging onto the family car. But motorcycles and scooters give you the freedom to go where you want and have a huge fun potential as well. Bikes are a way cool way to travel. And I’m no kid. I’ll be 53 in a few days. But my motorcycle insurance company has drivers as old as 80 who still drive motorcycles.

    It’s kind of fun to put on a full face crash helmet and body armor and travel at rapid speeds on a two-wheeler with fast acceleration on the streets. Bikes are a real blast to drive compared to a car. And the mileage is a real good deal as well. Most people just call me “The motorcycle guy”, because I’m nearly always on some bike.

    Hey kids look! It’s old guys on bikes!

  • Mac Lorry

    Lets pretend the Backlight process actually works (post #30). One of the products of that reaction would be hydrino hydrides, which are protons with an electron orbiting in an energy state lower that any found in nature. The same amount of energy released from the process that produced hydrino hydrides would be needed to convert them back to natural hydrogen, and thus, there’s no net energy gain if the system is closed. It’s obvious then that in order to use this process as an energy source hydrino hydrides would need to be disposed of.

    The first question that raises is what effect do these hydrino hydrides have on living organisms, on ecosystems, and on the hydrologic cycle? The next question is should anyone be allowed to use this technology (if it exists) without answering the first question?

  • Rance

    Just to be nit-picky, cuz I’m bored:

    You throw down or take up the gauntlet — it depends on whether you are making or accepting the challenge.

    You lay down the law.

  • Mac –

    More and more it’s becoming clear that Democrats will not, under ANY circumstances, solve a problem they think they can get political mileage from – even if it would be to their very real benefit to actually solve the problem.

    You see Pelosi shrieking that we’re not going to drill our way out of the problem – and the prices keep going up and up.

    You see Bush announcing he’s dropping drilling bans – and the price of oil drops.

    The cause and effect on this is REALLY not that hard to figure out – unless you’re determined that under no possible circumstance are you going to do anything that might fix the problem.

    You point out that the Dems have been stalling on drilling for 30 years, all the time saying that it’ll take a good 10 years to get the oil to market. The apparent thought is that because it won’t help NOW, it shouldn’t be attempted EVER.

  • Motorcycles can be fun and are certainly more energy efficient. They’re also far more inherently dangerous and are very easily effected by the weather. For instance, where I live driving motorcycle is completely out of the question for at least 4 months every year, and weather could easily create issues on any given day during the remaining 8 months.

    Then you’ve got families with more than two people in them, like mine, or people who want to carry more than one small suitcase of cargo, like me quite often. Again, a second vehicle would be required.

    So I need to buy (and insure and maintain) a car AND a motorcycle so I can save some money on gas some of the time?

    There is a certain demographic that motorcycles as significant transportation make sense for. It’s a pretty small demographic.

  • Mac Lorry

    Paul,

    The same “it will take up to ten years for drilling to do anything, so we shouldn’t drill now” argument has been made for more than 20 years. We know now that that argument was wrong 20 years ago, it was wrong 15 years ago, it was wrong 10 years ago, and it’s wrong now. It’s a failed policy and politicians who stick to it won’t get into office nor be in office for long. Politically it’s irrelevant what oil companies do. As long as Congress is in the business of banning drilling they’re going to be held responsible for high prices and disruptions in supplies. We’ll see if the democrats are really willing to fall on this sword. Bush might have been right when he claimed 2008 would be a good year for Republicans.

    Motorcycles are great fun in good weather, but they’re not practical transportation for most people in most areas. In most states you can’t legally carry a passenger who’s too short (young) to reach the passenger foot pegs. Heat, cold, and rain make riding miserable. Sand, ice, snow, hail, and lighting make riding dangerous. Many new riders would (and do) get into accidents riding a motorcycle on busy streets.

    That said, if we don’t aggressively develop all sources of energy, then not to far into the future many people will be riding motorcycles like they do in third world nations now. Is that the democrats plan for the nation?

  • WildWillie

    The lefty’s just cannot look into the future at all. Their argument gives them away. “We won’t see any benefit from drilling offshore for 10 years,” as if we shouldn’t plan for that benefit. The lefty’s have stopped refineries from being built, they have come up with 38 different gasoline mixtures that hampers delivery to all, they have stopped nuclear power plants from being built and they stopped drilling. This situation lays squarely on the laps of the lefty’s. ww

  • Mac –

    “The first question that raises is what effect do these hydrino hydrides have on living organisms, on ecosystems, and on the hydrologic cycle? The next question is should anyone be allowed to use this technology (if it exists) without answering the first question?”

    Your second question there… let’s try running it back a few generations.

    Should anyone be allowed to use this coal stuff? The smoke’s nasty, and God knows what it’ll do to our lungs! Never mind it’s more compact than wood – trains run well enough on wood – who needs coal?

    Should anyone be allowed to use this electricity stuff? You can’t see it, you’ll likely kill yourself with it, and what will the changeover from gas lighting to electric do to our eyes? It needs to be studied more before we electrify the country!

    Hey, what about this radio stuff? All that radio signal music and talk in the air… What impact is that going to have long-term?

    Okay, back to your questions.

    #1. Ain’t got a clue, and it ain’t my problem. As I’ve said – I thought this was all a scam in the first place. The output appears to be hydrogen – which can be easily handled.

    2. There’s a certain class of people who seem to think everything should be forbidden unless thoroughly and completely proven to be safe beyond any possibility of a shadow of a doubt.

    Unfortunately, technological progress has not been a terribly safe thing. Look at the discussions between safety experts on the relative merits of AC and DC current when electrifying the country in the early 1900’s. Current coal-fired power plants aren’t safe environments, and the output of one of those contains enough garbage to give an econut nightmares. Now there’s people saying (once again) that cell phones are a brain cancer risk, despite no epidemological evidence that that’s the case… but it MIGHT be, therefore we should stop using them.

    Your second question seems to emulate that attitude, up to and including prohibition of any technology that isn’t vetted and formally endorsed by the Gaia Protection Council first. I’m pretty sure that’s not how you intended it to come across, though.

    At this point, we need to wait until there’s more info. If there are problems, they’ll become apparent. I’m still skeptical of it – but even CNN seems to think they might have something.

  • Oyster –

    “JLawson, wow – the Emc2 stuff, in particular, was way over my head :)”

    You and me both, man – but I’m sure glad there’s folks that DO understand that stuff. But if you think THAT’s bad – take a look at the Blacklight theory stuff. It’s not over my head, it’s just plain orbiting a planet in another solar system.

    But you know something? I don’t need to understand it at that level. My concern is – can I flip a switch and get power out of it? If so, then as far as I’m concerned for myself, anything beyond a layman’s comprehension is sheer gravy.

  • Mac –

    I looked at my response, it kind of seemed I was bustin’ your chops on the questions you asked, and I apologize, I didn’t mean for it to seem like that.

    Mill’s theories don’t seem to be congruent with today’s ideas about quantum mechanics or even conventional chemical reactions. I sure won’t disagree with that.

    I won’t discuss whether they’re right or wrong – but if you can get an output that theory says logically shouldn’t be there, I’m going to go with reality over theory.

    His theories seem to work for what he’s doing and what he’s made, and there’s apparently been independent confirmation of his experiements – and if this is a scam (as I originally thought) it’s going to be pretty apparent fairly soon.

    If it isn’t…

    More info – http://www.hydrino.org/labreports.php

    and a rebuttal of a critique…

    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/10252

    I’ll repeat – when I originally came across this stuff, I thought it was a scam. Now – I don’t know what to think. The math and physics are way above my pay grade, and I can make out the shape of what’s being said but the details just don’t come clear.

  • Mac Lorry

    jLawson,

    Looking at the Blacklight web site it’s evident the energy from the process is chemical, rather than nuclear. The claimed breakthrough is in the supposed previously unknown energy state of hydrogen atoms. Without commenting on the validity of the claim, the resulting byproduct of any chemical reaction that produces heat (which is what’s claimed) cannot be the same as the initial chemicals without adding external power to the process. To do so violates even classical laws of physics such as the conservation of energy / mass. Thus, there must be a byproduct, and being it’s a chemical reaction, many tons of this byproduct would be produced by any significant power generation plant.

    I think the byproduct are these “hydrino hydrides”, which seem to be quantitatively different then byproducts of coal or wood combustion, and releasing them into the environment may produce unexpected damages . Unlike the progressive no-progress people you cite, I’m all for development of new technology, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea to do so with a blind eye to potential environmental impacts.

    We used to use lead in gas and paint, but we found out that was a mistake and completely changed the usage of lead. We used to use asbestos in insulation, furnace linings, break shoes, and roofing material, but then we found out that was a mistake and completely changed the usage of asbestos. Maybe the cell phone as we know it today have a similar fate.

  • Dave – “Odd how we don’t read about stuff like that in the U.S. Especially since a U.S. Captain was kidnapped during the attack.”

    Odd (not really) how utterly clueless you are. Here’s one of dozens of U.S. based new services that reported the story.

    Google is your friend Dave. Unless you consider it to your advantage to remain clueless.

  • Dave again – “Not when you add the cost of clean up and other business’s affected. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground it spilled 250,000 barrels and cost $2.5 billion to clean up. That does not include the cost of other business’s that were impacted by the pollution such as fishermen.”

    And so? What was the cost of the WTC coming down to the U.S. economy?

    The cost to insurers was in the billions, the cost to the economy was in the trillions.

  • Maggie

    Mac Lorry, I’m not opposed to off-shore drilling myself.
    But I’m just stating the fact that it will take up to ten years to actually see any new
    oil from such a process as exploration, drilling and building new refineries.
    But you do know that often most oil refineries have not worked near their peak for decades, even though demand was rising.
    And all the major oil companies own land that holds oil that they themselves have
    failed to build new drilling or refining sites on for decades.
    Creating less of the product than the demand levels has allowed the price to rise.

    Paul,
    Where are your sources to back up the quote
    above?
    I worked in the oil industry for 22 years.
    The reason there are no new refineries or chemical plants is because of the over regulation of the federal government.
    Just doing a turn around, or adding a new unit within an old complex takes years of regulatory paper work and planning.
    As to the companies owning properties they refuse to drill on, where is your sources for this? The oil companies are in business for one thing, making money. How is owning land that might contain hydrocarbons
    they don’t drill making money?