Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (20808)	7/23/2008 2:42:15 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

It was the BANKERS who've prevented projects from going ahead. (Not some mythically 'all powerful' 'liberals' or 'dems' or 'environmentalists'.) Not that the above were not often in opposition too... But even with the federal government subsidizing the entire fuel chain, and sticking the taxpayers with the entire cost of disaster insurance for the industry, and promising to accept and 'dispose of' the high level waste (for the next couple of million years or so. Who knows what the cost for that will finally be?), Wall Street just didn't see financial viability in the projects. Just much too expensive compared to alternative technologies. They couldn't compete in the markets during the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s without heavy subsidies. Not that that can't or won't change in the future, as the costs of alternative power-producing technologies themselves rise... but even today, and after all the fuel cost price increases for natural gas and for coal --- both STILL produce electricity far cheaper. (As also often does hydro... and many of the wind and solar projects that are being proposed may come in with lower TCOs and cheaper per-kilowatt outputs. After all, once their initial construction is amortized... the energy inputs from sunlight, wind, or rainfall are totally FREE.)

To: sandintoes who wrote (20808)	7/24/2008 4:16:34 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

That's right, and they worry too much about saving the spotted towel... they say there are so few of them left, but I was in Bed, Bath, and Beyond last week and they had spotted towels on sale!!! GZ

To: sandintoes who wrote (20808)	7/24/2008 4:22:59 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25737

There 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic, maybe we should let the Chinese drill there and take it from us, we don't want to upset the environment... USGS: Arctic Holds 90B Barrels of Oil Thursday, July 24, 2008 The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, the U.S. Geological Survey announced Wednesday. The USGS said technically recoverable resources are those produced using currently available industry practices and technology. The Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, the USGS reported. "Before we can make decisions about our future use of oil and gas and related decisions about protecting endangered species, native communities and the health of our planet, we need to know what's out there," USGS Director Mark Myers said. "With this assessment, we're providing the same information to everyone in the world so that the global community can make those difficult decisions." The three provinces of West Siberian Basin, the East Barents Basins and Arctic Alaska are said to hold more than 70 percent of the undiscovered natural gas. Though the Arctic is virtually unexplored with respect to petroleum, the search for it has resulted in the discovery of more than 400 oil and gas fields north of the Arctic Circle. foxnews.com GZ