home loans
home loans

Search This Site

Multimedia

Who's Online

We have 4 guests online

 

Google Ads

Energy
Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans in Alaska PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 25 April 2011 19:51

 
$6 to $8 Gas? Prices Will "Skyrocket" If U.S. Stops Drilling, Says Former Shell Exec PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 05 June 2010 00:17

(finance.yahoo)  Oily tar balls hit the sands of the Florida Panhandle Friday even as BP engineers adjusted a sophisticated cap over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The containment cap is the latest attempt to plug the worst oil spill in U.S. history, triggered when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, killing 11 people.

Whenever the spill is eventually contained, and the best estimates are still in the "months" category, the BP disaster has major implications for the environment, America's energy policy, and consumers.

"The implications for the American consumer and our society and the domestic United States are very seriously at the front of what I think about," says our guest John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil and author of Why We Hate the Oil Companies.

The BP disaster has raised questions about halting risky, domestic oil extraction procedures altogether, including deep-water programs. But Hofmeister -- a longtime advocate of more domestic drilling -- says Americans simply can't afford to stop drilling. (America's net imports of foreign oil have jumped to 58.2 percent in 2007 from 34.8 percent in 1973, accoding to the latest annual figures from the U.S. govermment.

"While we dream about a new energy system that is decades in the future, the prices that consumers will have to pay for things like gasoline, electricity, and diesel would just skyrocket" if America halts offshore drilling.


Read More



Last Updated on Saturday, 05 June 2010 01:01
 
Our Founders' Solutions for Illegal Immigration, Part 1: by Chuck Norris PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 24 May 2010 22:12

(humanevents) With his thick Austrian accent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped in his commencement address at Emory University this past week: "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."

It seems that the whole country is taking sides in the battle over the border in Arizona. Yet it truly remains the tip of the iceberg of our immigration troubles. Spurred on by the national debate, at least 10 other states are seeking to enact tougher immigration laws.

Now more than ever, we must protect our borders and sovereignty, by providing genuine solutions to the dangers of American boundary fluidity. With estimates showing that by 2060 America will add 167 million people (37 million immigrants today will multiply into 105 million then), it is imperative for us to do more to solve this crisis. Now is the time to beat the doors of change and save the boundaries and future of America.

But the federal government has failed miserably to produce a viable solution to the illegal immigration crisis. Amnesty is not the answer. And immigration laws aren't effective if we continue to dodge or ignore them. Furthermore, globalization efforts have only confused security matters, further endangering our borders and national identity -- our sovereignty. And the question that keeps coming to my mind is: How is it that we can secure borders in the Middle East but can't secure our own?

From America's birth, our Founders struggled, too, with international enemies and border troubles, from the sea of Tripoli to the western frontier. While welcoming the poor, downtrodden and persecuted from every country, they also had to protect the sacred soil they called home from unwanted intruders.

Read More

Last Updated on Monday, 24 May 2010 23:04
 
The dangers of junk science PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 03 April 2010 00:21

(reason)  Much government interference with our peaceful pursuits is based on junk science and junk economics. Politicians know a lot of stuff that isn't so. So do reporters.

Congress now spends your money on a host of intrusive new programs designed to make America "energy independent." President Obama recently announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.

I smiled when I heard. Finally, even Democrats woke up to the benefits of nuclear power. But Cato Institute energy analyst Jerry Taylor set me straight:

"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."

Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar'—you've got a Democratic speech about energy."

All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.

I thought the only reason that nuclear didn't pay for itself is the burden of excessive regulations and objections from silly environmentalists. Apply for permission to build a plant, and their cumbersome lawsuits impose ruinously expensive delays.

Again, Taylor set me straight. He says the nuclear industry itself is comfortable with today's level of regulation. The big problem today is not environmental rules, but simply the huge cost. The same high costs, he says, are found in countries that have long been friendly to nuclear power.

He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.


Read More

 
Cheap Natural Gas and Its Democrat Enemies PDF Print E-mail
Saturday, 06 February 2010 22:49

(americanthinker)  We have the power to tap vast shale gas reserves that lie under our feet through large swaths of America, but special interest groups aligned with the Democratic Party are trying to frustrate plans to bring this cheap, plentiful, and clean energy to the surface. Who are the irresponsible parties?

A primer on shale gas

Shale gas is natural gas trapped in rock formations far below the earth's surface. These gas-bearing rock formations run in layers. American energy companies have developed the technology to drill horizontally through the layers. Then "fracking" happens. This is a process whereby a pressurized fluid (composed almost completely of water and sand, with a miniscule potion of commonplace chemicals that speeds the flow of the gas) is used to crack the rock and release the gas. 

We are the Saudi Arabia of shale gas. The potential is enormous. Already, landowners and states have benefited from royalty payments. Hard-hit communities are experiencing an economic revival. Small business, people looking for jobs, community centers, fire departments, and schools have all been beneficiaries.

There is so much shale gas waiting to be tapped that the dream of natural gas-powered vehicles can very well reach fruition.

Who could possibly want to throw a wrench into these bright prospects?

Read More

Last Updated on Saturday, 06 February 2010 23:12
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2