370 total votes
The state and federal government already have enough rules and regulations in place to govern oil and gas. There is no reson to add redundant watch dogs that only add cost to the counties and discourage producers, which is the real reason for the people calling for local control. An increased energy production is in the best interest of the national economy and security, and local bias people should not be allowed to stand in the way.
Posted 7 May 2012, 4:07 p.m.
Steve always harps on majority when it's in his favor, how about it Steve?
Posted 11 May 2012, 10:26 a.m.
"An increased energy production is in the best interest of the national economy and security, and local bias people should not be allowed to stand in the way."
Wouldn't conservation achieve the same goals? This ALEC-templated legislation (unfortunately, Colorado is one of three states which gives ALEC a tax exemption, despite its being a blatantly partisan lobbying operation) assumes that only by increasing supplies can energy security be achieved. What about reducing demand? Not part of the conversation...
Posted 11 May 2012, 12:33 p.m.
Fred,I can think of 3 polls I've referred to on Oil and Gas. Usually a response to someone else's posted poll. One was yours. If a poll supports your view, use it. However I do suggest it be based on polling done with a correct sampling of respondents. We both know this would not be such a poll. But make your case anyway.
Posted 11 May 2012, 1:09 p.m.
No Eric. While conservation is an important consideration it alone would absolutely not serve the same goals. Not even close.
The goal (my goal) is not to close up shop and hide out in the woods and see how few kilowatts we can use. How pathetic is that?This nation is doomed without economic growth... doomed. Not 2% or 3% but real, solid, year-over-year 5%-7% growth rates.Without cheap, reliable and abundant energy there will be no such growth, and this nations best days are behind it.
All nations living standards DIRECTLY correlate to energy use. Reduce energy use and living standards will drop accordingly.
More efficient technologies are developed every day, but stoping the countrys economy until some utopian device appears is national suicide. The rest of the world ain't gonna play that game, even for a moment.The sad thing is I think a lot of folks know and are ok with that.
Posted 11 May 2012, 8:32 p.m.
We need oil, solar, wind, tidal, hydrogen, methane, ethanol, cow farts, and anything else anybody can think of to get off middle east oil. Then we can tell the Muslim countries we no longer need their energy and we will nuke them if they attack us again.
Posted 12 May 2012, 9:47 p.m.
Swapping out an incandescent bulb for fluorescent saves energy, but I don't see how this lowers anyone's standard of living. Experts tell us that conservation can save more energy than we could hope to drill our way into, which is why I find it curious that it isn't part of the conversation. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Consider some of the new hybrid supercars coming out from the likes of BMW, etc. which do 0-60 in 4 seconds while achieving 80mpg, and tell me again how conservation necessarily reduces living standards? Germany has consistently reduced energy consumption, which you would have us believe dooms their economy, but their strong economic performance seems to contradict your position.
Saying conservation would doom us to economic disaster is FUD not backed up by fact.
Posted 17 May 2012, 12:34 p.m.
What's discouraging, is the Obama administration's energy policy recently being edited this week to replace the term "energy efficiency" with "clean coal", which is yet another huge disappointment. Obama had every opportunity to be the "transformative" leader he campaigned as, only to knuckle under to every fearmongering special-interest group out there once taking office. Much better to call for an expansion of nuclear power, without waiting for any solution to the long-term waste disposal problem...
Posted 17 May 2012, 12:50 p.m.
I love it. You don't have a clue about Germany do you, Eric?
Germany burns lignite for most of it's domestically produced power; one of the dirtiest, low-grade coals found on earth.Check out their huge lignite strip mine just outside Garzweiler. Quite a "dirty little secret" for the environmental whackos, I'm sure.
Germany has the fourth largest economy in the world and it is the fifth largest per capita consumer of energy on earth.Let me repaet that for you, Mr Conservation IT IS THE 5th LARGEST CONSUMER OF ENERGY ON EARTH.
It uses more electricity than any other nation in all of Europe. It's nat gas consumption is up 34% since 1991.That's how it accomplishes all the innovation you describe, Eric, NOT by sitting out in the woods around a flourescent light bulb.
As of 2009 Germany's energy came from the following sources:Oil 35%Nat gas 22%Lignite 12%Bituminous coal 11%Nuclear 11%Hydroelectric and wind 1.5%Other 9%
Furthermore, they pay dearly for the wind and solar power they use. Germans pay some of the highest electric bills in the world.A $139 electric bill in the Yampa Valley would cost you $560 in Germany.They also pay a Value added tax of 19% on most consumer goods.
Posted 17 May 2012, 7:18 p.m.
A nations living standard is DIRECTLY TIED to it's energy consumption.
Posted 17 May 2012, 7:22 p.m.
Forgotten your password?
©2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today