Forum Index Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CEO of Exxon says...
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Everything Else
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:41 pm    Post subject: CEO of Exxon says... Reply with quote

So I get home after a chiropractor appointment a bit late. I turn on the news while I'm fixin up some viddles. I see a snippet from a press conf where the CEO of Exxon/Mobil, I think his name is Tillery, says the oil companies have to do their part on the supply side of the problem but the consumers "must also do their part on the demand side and cut back".

Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Surprised Surprised Evil or Very Mad .... Shocked

um... hello? we HAVE been cutting back. demand was lower in March than in a very long time. national average was 3.10 a gallon. May we cut back even further and the national average is 3.94 a gallon. I don't see cutting back helping in the least Mr. Tillery! WTF???? somehow the rising cost of gas has become OUR fault?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

what a cut in the back! Surprised

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

china and india aren't going to cut back
that's what's driving up the price
THAT and the fact that we won't allow american oil companies to drill

oil companies do not set the world price
market forces do
and that includes investors who speculate on the future
if the future looks like the supply isn't going to increase
but demand IS
they drive the price up even more Evil or Very Mad
it's PARTIALLY artificial
but it's not bush doing it
and it's not the oil companies doing it

it's ALL more like about what someone is NOT DOING

there is about twice as many reserves as usually gets estimated
(still underground)
but that doesn't go on the market
if it doesn't get drilled

and that oil doesn't get into the pumps
unless it's refined

in short
democrats (legislators) in this country
are about 90% against any new drilling and refining
and repubs are about 90% FOR it

they are burning frikkin OIL to run electrical plants
and THAT drives up demand
but demos are against nuke plants too

basically the demos block ALL energy production

no one who votes for democrats has much of a license to bitch about prices

Last edited by Dwylbtzle on Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

check THIS out

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

foesad sent me some more chuck norris stuff
here's that website again:



Congress, get off your gas, and drill!


Posted: June 09, 2008
12:38 am Eastern

© 2008

Last Thursday oil prices increased $5.50 per barrel in one day. Last Friday marked the biggest single-day surge in oil price history, rocketing $11 more to $138 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In just two days, oil costs increased 13 percent.

Average Americans are literally driving to the poor house on financial fumes. With gas at more than $4 per gallon, roughly two cars in every household, and the average annual gas usage at 700 gallons, you do the math. Americans are being forced to use their hard-earned money that once put food in their stomachs to now put petroleum into their tanks, but to drive the exact same distances they drove a decade ago for four-to-five times the price.

As oil and gas prices skyrocket, Congress continues to play the blame game. In April 2006, with the Democrats poised to take over Congress with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, she released a statement saying, "With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress." She followed that with the commitment, "Democrats have a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging." So has the Democrat's commonsense plan worked? Average gas prices were about $2.50 a gallon at the time. Now they're $4 a gallon and rising. Some crack-down plan.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, they are going to discuss this week a cap-and-trade system, something that Obama and MCain both support. The main problem is official estimates say that it will increase gas by another $1.50 a gallon. Or as Newt Gringrich said in an interview recently with Glenn Beck, "It should be called 'Raise prices and destroy jobs' because that's what it will do. It's going to raise the price of gasoline; it's going to raise the price of diesel fuel for truckers. It's going to raise the price of aviation fuel for an already ailing airline industry. It's going to raise the price of heating oil. It's going to raise the price of natural gas, and it's going to raise the price of coal."

From the steady decline in the value of our dollar, to trade deficits and oil dependency, our sovereignty is being sold out from underneath us. Might I remind the federal government what one of their original and primary charges is: to protect the American public from the tyranny of foreign powers – which is exactly what is happening through others' financial rule over us. It is sucking the life out of our economy. And Congress is virtually standing by and watching it happen.

Look at the energy chaos that our government has allowed. While we remain at the mercy of oil companies, cartels and OPEC, our government has tied the hands of states and citizens to tap even temporary energy relief from our own land. Here are a few key vistas on the oil and energy landscape at the moment:

Though we have more oil in the shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming than combined in the Middle East (800 billion barrels), liberals and environmentalists have made it illegal to touch it.
It's illegal to drill in northern Alaska (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), or off the coasts of Florida or California.
Oil fields in Colorado are being shut down.
We won't develop shale oil fields in the Western states
It's illegal to explore in the Atlantic.
It's illegal to explore in the Pacific
It's illegal to explore in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
We're not receiving any more leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while China, Venezuela and Cuba are.
We haven't built an oil refinery in 25 years and reduced in half those we have
There's enough natural gas beneath America (406 trillion cube feet) to heat every home in America for the next 150 years, but we can't tap it all.
We have the largest supply of coal in the world, but it's Germany who is planning to build 27 coal-fired electrical plants by 2020.
American airlines are in danger of going out of business.
American truckers are being stranded on the sides of the road.
American commuters are going bankrupt trying to travel back and forth to work, and are being forced to work locally for lower wages.
If there isn't a conspiracy going on here, someone needs to make a movie about one!

Bill Clinton once said, "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse emissions because we've got to save the planet for our grandchildren." That is the type of mentality that got us in this trouble. I'm all for doing our best to preserve our planet, but not at the price of losing our nation in the process. Bill's words just might come true, but not as he or Al Gore might expect. We might save the planet for our grandchildren, and lose America at the same time, unless we turn around this energy crisis now.

Instead of whining and blaming, Congress needs to take some practical steps now to stop the insanity at the pumps, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, open up some temporary energy production avenues for economic relief (like shale development) and focus more of their taxpayer work time into establishing further alternative ways of producing energy for everything (from coal, electrical, natural gas, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, etc.) Being the wealthiest nation on Earth, there is simply no reason or justification for us to be dependent on fuels that we can't produce in our country.

If you're sick and tired of giving away $2 of every gallon of gas to foreign dictators, making other oil-producing countries, cartels and tycoons rich beyond their imagination, and watching the federal government flail for energy solutions and bow to international powers –all of whom are sucking the very life out of the American people, economy and threatening national security – I implore you to sign and pass along the petition, "Drill here, drill now, pay less" at Newt Gingrich's American Solutions website. We're hoping to send millions of signatures to Congress demanding an immediate emergency session and resolution to our economic and national security crisis revolving around soaring oil and gas prices.

Our message: It's time to drill here and drill now! The petition is simple. It states: "We therefore the undersigned citizens of the United States petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gas prices by authorizing exploration of proven energy reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."

Speaking of unstable countries, did I mention that the Iraq oil minister just reported that oil production is at pre-war levels (2.5 million barrels a day), yielding earnings for Iraq of $28.5 billion in just the first five months of this year? What that means is, we'll likely soon be dependent and in debt to yet another Middle Eastern oil-producing country that we've helped stabilize and become wealthy while ours is going straight down the tubes.

Congratulations Congress – you're completely failing us.


if the president and congress just ANNOUNCED they were going to do all that
the price of oil would immediately fall
because speculators are part of what's forcing it up, somewhat artificially

remember this:
every poll that shows how low bush's approval rating is
always finds that the demo congress' is even lower
Twisted Evil Razz

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from geezer:


I am fed up. I apologize if you have already seen this stuff and have made up your mind one way or another, but I cannot sit by anymore. The energy policies of this country are killing us, and our jobs. Well mine anyway.

I just know whatever I spent 9 years on active duty Navy for, I am pretty sure it wasn't this energy and some other policies from our congress.

Obviously we need to take better care of the environment, our mom's and dad's didn't know what effect their actions had, they had a different view of the world. But we do know the effect and we need to do better just because we ought to and we know how. We need new enviro friendly technologies and they are being invented. GM and the other auto companies have their fingers in every known viable way to provide alternative propulsion to their vehicles. Rick Wagoner's stance since his chairmanship's beginning at GM, has been get the auto out of the environmental discussion, hence his leadership on hydrogen, and since then the rest of the technologies. He hasn't always made the right call in some peoples minds, but that remains the goal.

But I myself don't want to move back to the caves to get it done, and we don't have to. We just need to bridge the gap between here and there, and like it or not that means oil for now.

I do know years ago, I heard about the shale oil in the 4 corners area of the US (Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado). I read a lot about it on the net. It is reported to have more oil than the Saudi's, just by itself, but because it is shale oil, it doesn't come out of the ground as easy as the regular stuff. However a few years ago, at $1-$2 or so per gallon, $3/gal was the target price where it becomes profitable to go get it. Well here we are and guess what? Not only are we not going after it, it's illegal by act of congress. And so is exploration off our east and west coasts and the Gulf. But guess what? China and Cuba are in one or more of those places, the gulf I think, or soon to be. Why do they get to drill it and we don't? Many other countries have been drilling off their coasts for decades and there have been no accidents. Do you recall ANY oil spills because of Katrina or any of those other terrible storms in the Gulf in the last few years? NO??? I'll bet there is a real good reason for that! Like we know more than we did 30 years ago and know how to do it safely!!

Some people have given estimates how much oil is in those places, and I don't know how much is fact and how much is hyperbole. But all seem to agree it's there how ever many barrels the right number is.

I have my opinions on why the congress is doing this, but so do you. I don't think it really matters why anymore. At $4/gal and rising daily, we're long past that discussion when we are now talking about the financial ruin and collapse of the economy under the weight of our oil import burden. A burden that now seems to be totally unnecessary. If we spent the money to develop the infrastructure, we may not have to import 1 more drop of oil. Did you know some scientists think oil is created by the earth's crust and core, and is not the result of dead dinosaurs anymore? It explains why we have more oil available now when 20-30 years ago we thought the wells would run dry by now. There are other explanations for that too. The point is the reason why we did things years ago, may not be valid anymore. It's time to get our thinking updated.

I am not on my knees begging yet, but I am seriously considering it. All I am asking is that you take a look, and get involved however you decide, whether congress needs to change direction or they are doing fine the way they are. I know I spent 9 years defending that. Please check out the following.

Shale oil in the US - just Google "shale oil American west" and the million or so hits ought to keep you busy awhile. Just remember some articles are older and things have changed in the last few years. Also Canada has found a way to get oil out of their tar sands, and that is similar to our shale and we import the heck out of that, if it's not #1 "foreign" oil source. By the way we have tar sands somewhere too, I just don't remember where right now and don't want to look it up this minute.

These next guys have an agenda I am sure. But the voting record of congress is a matter of public record. Whether the dems really want America to come in second place or not isn't the issue with me. What they are voting for or against IS the issue and whatever their reason is I don't care. I am concerned about the results Please read this and check up on your guys. If you don't like what they are doing let them know. If you do let them know.

(You may have to cut and paste the link)

Chuck Norris is a conservative and probably has an agenda. If he doesn't, this website does, I read it for a long time but don't much anymore. But again I think at $4/gal we're beyond agenda's now, and need to do something like find out what people are saying:

Check here to see what it costs to deliver what our government delivers

Here is a estimate of what you spend your money on in terms of days of work for food clothing shelter and taxes. Then listen to what the candidates are saying about taxes and see if you agree with their stance.

Lastly, if you want more drilling of our own oil and refined in our own NEW plants you may be interested in this place and petition to the congress.

At $4/gal we can't afford to have our collective heads in the sand and continue to elect people who are killing us economically.

Why don't we do something clever like let Exxon et al spend their "windfall" profits on getting more oil instead of the government taxing/confiscating it and redistributing it to anywhere but a workable solution like has heretofore been done.

And hold congress accountable for their actions, or inaction depending on your opinion.

Thanks for your time. While I think you ought to agree with me, just do something please, if nothing more than dig into what is going on. Look beyond the newspapers and 6 o'clock news and become informed.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

-oil companies get 4% of what you pay at the pump

the government gets 15%

so maybe the government should be punished
and should cut their 15%
since they stop the oil companies from drilling and lowering the price

that would instantly lower the price by 15%

but no
the government wants you to forget that THEY CAUSED the high prices
and blame the oil companies who want to solve the problem and lower the prices
so they can tax the oil companies more
and raise the price at the pump that much more

and a certain group of you out there BOUGHT THAT Laughing Rolling Eyes

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

saudi arabia has the world's largest known (regular, pooled underground), oil reserves

america has three times the oil saudi arabia has
in shale oil
in the rocky mountains

it used to be assumed they they would have to dig up whole mountain ranges to get it
in the last 20 years
steam pressure technology has been perfected
wherein high pressure--high temperature steam would be forced down into the shale oil deposits
and the oil could be, then, sucked up
or forced up, rather
the drill shafts
without disturbing the surface

if america just ANNOUNCED they were going to immediately begin doing this
oil would drop 40 dollars a barrel
if we announced we were going after ANWR and the continental shelf
it would instantly drop another 40 or 50

because futures speculators would be fighting to get thru the doors and sell their futures shares

once the oil supply began to actually increase, dramatically
it would fall even more

we could be back at 20 dollars a barrel in no time

maybe lower
it wasn't that long ago we WERE at 20 dollars per barrel

and that's without all this new source tapping that we could EASILY DO RIGHT NOW! Evil or Very Mad

there is no excuse for you're falling standard of living
EXCEPT MAYBE THE FACT that you might have, at one time, voted for democrats

all the democrats are against all energy
all the time
all the demos plan to do is tax the energy and make the price go up and up indefinately forever

all the repubs are for it

CHINA is now drilling in our contenental shelf
off cuba

brazil has just started drillion the BILLIONS of barrels that are off HER continental shelf

gas will very soon hit $5.00 dollars a gallon

wake up
or ride a damn donkey and live in a cave and burn yer furniture


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:49 pm    Post subject: Oil Speculation Reply with quote

It's called Speculation... and it's driving our dollar into the ground.
A handfull of Oil-Trading-Banks are nearly ready to collapse our
economy (Again)... and nobody in congress or the executive branch is
willing to do anything about it (Because of their heavy investments).

Check out the Non-Energy-Crisis link at the bottom for evidence of
Government involvement in the capping of Gull Island Reservour in
Alaska (The worlds largest oil field).

Oil Futures

Perhaps 60% of Oil Cost is Speculation
"’The tail that wags the dog’
All this is well and official. But how today’s oil prices are really determined
is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks
such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying
and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil
prices in this strange new world of “paper oil”."

"It is evident that the untamed surge in oil prices stems from speculative
activities in the oil futures market."
"The U.S Senate released a survey report in June 2006 suggesting that
$25 of the year's going oil prices of around $ 70/barrel was exclusively
resulted from financial speculation. The financial baron, Soros, testified
that the existing oil-price bubble could be disastrous: the over inflow of
capital to the oil futures market will break the market balance.
In addition, once the general tendency of the energy market alters
slightly, speculative capitalists will flee in droves, leading to total market collapse."

Non-Energy Crisis
The Drastic Iconoclastic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


all america has to do is ANNOUNCE that they are going to tap all this available oil
and the price will plummet
it would be like the housing bubble
the people driving up the prices will lose
but then again
all the poorer people will be able to buy gasoline
and still buy food and pay rent, etc

for every person who's pissed that housing prices fell
there are plenty of people who can now afford those houses better
it HAD to happen
because prices for houses were too damn high
and people were just paying more and more for them
because they assumed they were ALWAYS gonna go up
NOT because they were WORTH that much

the current state of affairs is largely

it's like when ENRON was trying to manipulate energy markets
and got busted for it

i say we BUST these people

and you can start by signing the petition
and then VOTING OUT any politician who doesn't listen
and by doing it FAST
vote now
and they will drill now

and right now that means voting democrats out
and then if the repubs don't get that message
keep voting THEM out too

we don't have to take this shit

when they realize that blocking energy is THE GODDAMNED KISS OF DEATH
THEN you'll see some results

Last edited by Dwylbtzle on Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

exxon announced today that they are getting out of retail sales of gasoline in america
it isn't worth them bothering with

that's how small their profits on retail gasoline sales are
they only make 4% on what you pay at the pump
the government makes 18%

if you want to screw with them
screw with the government more

it's the government who won't let the supply go up

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


ANWR is close to 20 million acres

there are 20 billion barrels of oil under 2000 acres, there

if we drilled it
we would not need saudi oil for 30-50 years


that doesn't account for the shale oil
(3 times all saudi oil reserves)

and that doesn't account for the continental shelf

nor synthetiic oil from coal
and we have more coal than saudi arabia has oil
and it could be made into fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline
maybe cleaner

but you would have to dig up huge areas of land
with the other stuff
we won't even need it before we have all our energy supplied by helium3 from the moon

and russia
and china
will be mining that by 2020
it's already in the plans
and it is being implemented RIGHT NOW

but one thing for sure
there IS NO "oil shortage" for america
that's a myth
it's horse crap
it's there
all we have to do is reach out and pick it up
(drill it)


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the fastest way to stop all carbon dioxide emissions
from man-made causes
is to go for helium3 as fast as possible
and before some dictatorship tries to completely control it
and that will not be accomplished by sucking 7 trillion dollars out of
the economy with carbon taxes and crap and trade policies
that india and china
and those dictatorships i mentioned
don't even have to follow! Evil or Very Mad

Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium-3 as the perfect fuel source.
By Julie Wakefield
Special to
posted: 05:30 pm ET
30 June 2000

Researchers and space enthusiasts seehelium 3 as the perfect fuel
source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, withvirtually no radioactive by-
product. Proponents claim its the fuel ofthe 21st century. The trouble is,
hardly any of it is found on Earth.But there is plenty of it on the moon.

Society is straining to keep pace withenergy demands, expected to
increase eightfold by 2050 as the world populationswells toward 12 billion.
The moonjust may be the answer.

"Helium 3 fusion energy may be thekey to future space exploration and
settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski,Director of the Fusion Technology
Institute (FTI) at the University ofWisconsin at Madison.

Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon,
enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a
single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tonscould supply the entire United
States' energy needs for a year, accordingto Apollo17 astronaut and FTI
researcher Harrison Schmitt.

Cash crop of the moon

When the solar wind, the rapid streamof charged particles emitted by the
sun, strikes the moon, helium 3 isdeposited in the powdery soil. Over
billions of years that adds up. Meteoritebombardment disperses the
particles throughout the top several meters ofthe lunar surface.

"Helium 3 could be the cash crop forthe moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime
advocate and leading pioneer in thefield, who envisions the moon
becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth."Today helium 3 would have a
cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms ofits energy equivalent in oil, he
estimates. "When the moon becomes an independentcountry, it will have
something to trade."


Fusion research began in 1951 in theUnited States under military
auspices. After its declassification in 1957scientists began looking for a
candidate fuel source that wouldn't produceneutrons. Although Louie
Alvarez and Robert Cornog discovered helium 3in 1939, only a few
hundred pounds (kilograms) were known to exist on Earth,most the by-
product of nuclear-weapon production.

Apollo astronauts found helium 3 onthe moon in 1969, but the link
between the isotope and lunar resourceswas not made until 1986. "It took
15 years for us [lunar geologists andfusion pioneers] to stumble across
each other," said Schmitt, the lastastronaut to leave footprints on the

For solving long-term energy needs,proponents contend helium 3 is a
better choice than first generation nuclearfuels like deuterium and tritium
(isotopes of hydrogen), which are nowbeing tested on a large scale
worldwide in tokamak thermonuclear reactors.Such approaches, which
generally use strong magnetic fields to containthe tremendously hot,
electrically charged gas or plasma in which fusionoccurs, have cost
billions and yielded little. The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor or ITER tokamak, for example, won't produce a singlewatt of
electricity for several years yet.

Increases production and safety costs

"I don't doubt it will eventually work,"Kulcinski said. "But I have serious
doubts it will ever provide an economicpower source on Earth or in
space." That's because reactors that exploit the fusion of deuterium and
tritium release 80 percent of their energyin the form of radioactive
neutrons, which exponentially increase productionand safety costs.

In contrast, helium 3 fusion would produce little residual radioactivity.
Helium 3, an isotope of the familiarhelium used to inflate balloons and
blimps, has a nucleus with two protonsand one neutron. A nuclear reactor
based on the fusion of helium 3 anddeuterium, which has a single nuclear
proton and neutron, would producevery few neutrons -- about 1 percent
of the number generated by the deuterium-tritiumreaction. "You could
safely build a helium 3 plant in the middle of a bigcity," Kulcinski said.

Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for poweringspacecraft and interstellar travel.
While offering the high performancepower of fusion -- "a classic Buck
Rogers propulsion system" -- helium3 rockets would require less
radioactive shielding, lightening the load,said Robert Frisbee, an advanced
propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet PropulsionLaboratory in Pasadena California.

Recently Kulcinski's team reports progresstoward making helium 3 fusion
possible. Inside a lab chamber, the Wisconsinresearchers have produced
protons from a steady-state deuterium-helium3 plasma at a rate of 2.6
million reactions per second. That's fast enoughto produce fusion power
but not churn out electricity. "It's proof of principle,but a long way from
producing electricity or making a power source outof it," Kulcinski said. He
will present the results in Amsterdam in midJuly at the Fourth
International Conference on Exploration and Utilizationof the Moon.

Size of a basketball

The chamber, which is roughly the sizeof a basketball, relies on the
electrostatic focusing of ions into a densecore by using a spherical grid,
explained Wisconsin colleague John Santarius,a study co-author. With
some refinement, such Inertial Electrostatic Confinement(IEC) fusion
systems could produce high-energy neutrons and protons usefulin
industry and medicine. For example, the technology could generate short-
lived PET (positron emission tomography) isotopes on site at hospitals,
enablingsafe brain scans of young children and even pregnant women.
Portable IECdevices could bridge the gap between today's science-based
research andthe ultimate goal of generating electricity, Santarius said.


This fall, the University of Wisconsinteam hopes to demonstrate a third-
generation fusion reaction between helium3 and helium 3 particles in the
lab. The reaction would be completely void of radiation.

"Although helium 3 would be very exciting,"says Bryan Palaszewski,
leader of advanced fuels at NASA Glenn ResearchCenter at Lewis
Field, "first we have to go back to the moon and be capableof doing
significant operations there."

Economically unfeasible?

Indeed for now, the economics of extractingand transporting helium 3
from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientists solved the physics
of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible,"asserted Jim
Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be
one of the first commercial space-exploration companies. "UnlessI'm
mistaken, you'd have to strip-mine large surfaces of the moon."

While it's true that to produce roughly70 tons of helium 3, for example, a
million tons of lunar soil would need to be heated to 1,470 degrees
Fahrenheit (800 degrees Celsius) to liberate the gas, proponents say
lunar strip mining is not the goal. "There's enough in the Mare
Tranquillitatis alone to last for several hundred years,"
Schmitt said.
The moon would be a stepping stone to other helium 3-rich sources, such
as the atmospheres of Saturn and Uranus.

Benson agreed that finding fuel sourcesin space is the way to go. But for
him, H2O and not helium 3 is the idealfuel source. His personal goal is to
create gas stations in space by mining asteroids for water. The water can
be electrolyzed into hydrogen or oxygen fuel or used straight as a
propellant by superheating with solar arrays."Water is more practical and
believable in the short run," he said.

But proponents believe only helium3 can pay its own way.

"Water just isn't that valuable," Schmittsaid. Besides the helium, a mining
process would produce water and oxygen as by-products, he says.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

got this in the email:

Dear Roy,

I have some exciting news to share with you. Because of your hard work and support we reached one million signatures on the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition.

Your voice and the voice of one million Americans is truly making a difference in shaping the national debate.

Just this week, President George Bush, Senator John McCain, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist all called for lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling. And U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland has started a pledge in the U.S. House in support of American oil production that has been signed by 126 members of Congress.

Now, we need your help to reach our next goal: 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican national conventions this fall. I hope you will go online today and make a special contribution of $10 or more to receive your own "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" bumper sticker to help us grow the movement.

I also hope you'll forward this message to 5 friends and encourage them to sign the petition.

Thank you for supporting this movement of one million Americans demanding real solutions to our energy challenges.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 4483
Location: Sun Valley, Idaho

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



DUH! Confused Rolling Eyes


Exxon and CocaCola had nearly identical absolute amounts of "profit" but
CocaCola had earned theirs on only a fraction of the total revenue
compared to Exxon. In other words, CocaCola is able to sell their product
for say $1.50 per six 12 oz cans (discount) which roughly equates to
about $112 per barrell, if scaled up to the barrell (42 gallons) of oil
measurement. But we don't hear anything about CocaCola's obscene
profits, despite the fact that the amount of profit is nearly the same as
Exxon and the profit margin is many times larger!! Plus, CocaCola does
not risk billions of dollars each year on drilling oil and gas wells that may
not make any money at all! The so called "dry hole".

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Everything Else All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group