What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy finds gold in Iowa. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Best Buy employee, Danielle Kelly, sings her way into holiday campaign.
187 Comments
- kirralin23, on 06/05/2008, -11/+139It's about time.
- Semprini, on 06/05/2008, -17/+87Its about time, build 100 more and a 100 nuclear power plants.
Do it now.
Environmentalists are a huge part of our problem.
Drill off of Florida, drill off of Texas, drill the hell out of California, Alaska and Montana.
Just do it - tak84, on 06/05/2008, -4/+71I agree that we should be looking for alternative energy sources, especially if they will be cheaper than current oil prices. In the meantime, however, lets bring some oil production back to the states. Just about everyone on digg goes crazy when a union will endorse Obama, or when Obama bashes NAFTA. Finally something comes around that would provide union jobs within the US, decreasing our reliance on foreign oil and you freak out because it's not green enough. Give me a break.
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -15/+72Its about ***** time!
I shall celebrate by cutting down a tree or three. - Birukun, on 06/05/2008, -8/+54Now lets DRILL domestically to supply this refinery!
- MindStalker, on 06/05/2008, -2/+41Come on, enough with this "Not in my backyard" mentality. The crude WILL be processed somewhere, if not in the US it would have been somewhere else, most likely with much less environmental regulations.
- MadEnvoy, on 06/05/2008, -11/+50Although this is an improvement, we still should be hedging more towards alternative power.
- andydumi, on 06/05/2008, -0/+37They say the lag between starting to build and completion is 10-15 years. And the lag after starting production to significant effect on oil output and thus price effect is another 5-10. This is the kind of stuff that ought to have been started in the 80s after the problems in the 70s with oil.
- duke_nate, on 06/05/2008, -5/+36Aggreed its about frickin time! As much as all the environmentalists HATE this, the fact is OIL and GAS are the life blood of our economy. Refinerys are getting to their capacity in the country and yet we havent built a new one to increase capacity in 30+ years! Never mind the fact that a brand new refinery will have much less pollution than the rest of our aging facilities.
Also this will create 4,500 construction jobs for 4 years, and 1,800+ jobs at the refinery itself. More wages into the community, more tax revenues, lower gas prices. HOW IS THIS A BAD THING! - Digger1123, on 06/05/2008, -7/+37Thats the long term solution, the short term solution is allowing oil companies to drill wherever they own the land. But the liberals have passed laws banning companies from tapping into some of the biggest oil reserves known to man.
- xturmn8r, on 06/05/2008, -1/+21Don't make Al Gore cry. He may start comfort eating.
- Digger1123, on 06/05/2008, -7/+26For once I see more sanity than insanity in a comment thread on Digg.
- dwm1225, on 06/05/2008, -2/+20Thank you for your more rational comment. I get so tired of irrational greeny wackos (I'm referring to the extreme greenies) that aren't satisfied with anything we do. While I do agree we need to continue developing alternative power, we also need to resolve our immediate problem and quickly at that as it is having drastic impact on our economy.
- Julik, on 06/05/2008, -0/+17The country is fighting real hard to bring down gas prices until alternate fuel sources are a reality.
- Chip53, on 06/05/2008, -6/+23Great! Let's get a few more started and start drilling again. You want lower gas prices? That's how to do it. It can be done in a clean and safe manner. It seems the people who whine about dependence on foreign oil are the same one who prevent us from doing anything about it.
- Digger1123, on 06/05/2008, -3/+20Drill the hell out of the Rocky Mountains, over 2 billion barrels of shale oil in the Rocky's.
- thedogfatherx, on 06/05/2008, -2/+17I agree that Environmentalists are part of the problem but it's also a good thing that they exist. I'm sure your talking about the extreme environmentalists??
I believe we have enough technology and knowledge to be able to drill in any one of these spots without distrupting our beautiful wildlife. This is all speculation of course. I don't study oil technology. - IphtashuFitz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+15One thing I really like about this news is that it's being done up in South Dakota, away from the gulf coast where even the threat of a hurricane can cause gas prices to rise because of the likely damage to all the refineries down there. Granted, South Dakota can have it's own severe weather but chances are it wouldn't get knocked out of service for weeks/months at a time if a nasty storm hits it.
- fuzzmeister, on 06/05/2008, -0/+13There's a big difference between a person who cares about the environment and your average Greenpeace nutjob. Don't lump all environmentalists into the same camp, many of them would actually support measures like building nuclear power plants, as it would reduce carbon output greatly (vs coal).
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -2/+13You're right, that's why every major car company now has a hybrid line or one currently in the testing stages. They're really resisting....
- Hiltonizer, on 06/05/2008, -0/+10A few months ago, I would have been extremely ecstatic. It has been said time and again that the lack of new refineries are the greatest contributor to the increase in gas prices.
However, if you compare the increase in prices of crude oil vs. gasoline, gasoline should be much more expensive. It is a misnomer to say a new refinery hasn't been built in over 30 years, as existing refineries have been expanded to increase capacity, and we have never utilized even close to 100% of capacity, for extended periods of time.
As an active investor in public equities, I have seen the reduction in margins in the parts of refiners (take a look a valero and tesoro's stock charts, the largest refiners)
Companies like Hess, Chevron, and ExxonMobil actually have to subsidize their margins on refining to not negatively impact the sales of gasoline. They can do that because they make up the difference on the high priced crude.... which they also generate.
Global growth, specifically in the emerging markets is impacting the supply/demand and causing higher crude prices, which are the vast majority of our gasoline prices.
We need REAL alternatives... and that's where the environmentalist and Kennedy's are killing us... not just drilling and refineries.... My state of Massachusetts could cut its oil dependency almost 30% if fat Teddy Kennedy would quit fighting wind turbines off shore. And Nuclear plants have a hell of a time getting built. Clean, cheap, energy being denied? Who's to blame here? - Digger1123, on 06/05/2008, -7/+17Hell yes. We have some of the largest oil deposits in the world right here, and the libs won't let us drill for oil.
- Rippleeffect, on 06/05/2008, -0/+10I applaud you sir. You brought McCain into a completely unrelated article.
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -6/+15Ahh yes the enviro goons filled with emotions and ignorance will descend like crows on this thread.
Alternative fuels = Buzzword for emotional feel good BS that will uterly crumble when reality, logical and rational thinking is applied. The fact is we know there is no "Alternative" pie in the sky that will magically free us 100% from fossil fuels. hell look at any nation that uses alternative fuels! They can never be 100% free they usually are about 40/60.
And Btw is you think alternative fuels such as Ethanol will magically drop fuel prices back to $1 a gallon you are a ***** Idiot! - thedogfatherx, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12This is awesome awesome news. Being from North Dakota I was wondering myself when in the hell they are going to start tapping in to the huge oil reserve they found in western North Dakota.
- HeyBob, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Typically Canadian - we export our raw resources for low cost and have some one else smelt/mill/refine them and make them more valuable which we then have to buy back.
- zoom1928, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Start?
- mCanada, on 06/05/2008, -0/+8Drilling isn't going to help you much with this refinery. It's primary purpose is to refine Bitumen, which comes from Alberta "Up North". You don't drill for it, it's strip mined. Canada has most of the stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen
- duke_nate, on 06/05/2008, -1/+9Doesn't seem possible does it.
- Semprini, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8Not ignorant.
I am all for alt fuels. But the tech is not there yet, it will be at some point. But, till then, drill the crap out of what we have.
And for god's sake, time for nuclear power, its the cleanest, safest and best for the environment. Don't believe me? Ask the former head of Greenpeace, he saw the light.
As for CAFE, its crap, free market is what will save us, not the hand of the government. - 3tcp, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8I'm with MindStalker on this one. Energy independence and environmentally responsible energy sources are objectives that can go hand in hand. We can do little to curb the growth in demand for gasoline at the moment through greener alternatives alone. The green technology that will replace our current fossil fuel system with a production capacity high enough to match our rising demand is still 10+ years down the road.
The most environmentally responsible thing to do is to build the production facilities that are needed to meet our demand on US soil where we can monitor the pollution that we're responsible for producing. - Meany123, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Not much. This is how Canadians do things. We export raw resources (lumber, steel, crude oil), have other people refine it and turn it into value added products, then buy it back from them at outrageous premiums. In terms of Alberta's side of the deal, there really isn't any, per se. Canada (nor Alberta) has NO official "energy policy", there is no plan, there is nothing like that where there is some coordinated effort to ensure that we get the best deal from the resources. It's the last place on earth in the energy market where the free market dictates ALL the shots and reigns supreme, but it has led to some pretty absurd consequences, for example, Western Canada may be one of the largest net exporters of oil in the world, but Eastern Canada is one of the largest importers. No other country operates like that.
Anyway, I doubt they could build a refinery in Alberta right now, there is NO labour available. Random trades people (electricians, pipe fitters, construction workers) get paid $250k a year because of the shortage to work in the oilsands, so any attempt to build this refinery nearby would probably quadruple the cost. - joe122370, on 06/05/2008, -4/+10AMEN!
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -2/+8As America feels the growing pain at the pump they need to realize that it is not going to get better—ever...unless we start drilling our own oil.
While the oil industry has been spinning the myth that we are past peak oil (and that's why we have to pay more for each barrel of oil), they know that [a] oil is replenished by the Earth and [b] they are not about to create viable alternate sources of energy to compete with, and drive down the price of, oil. Privately the oil industry understands precisely why oil reached $135 a barrel.
Look at the oil whores around the world figured out that when too much oil was pumped from the ground, the prices drop. To keep the price of oil artificially high the whores figured out that all he had to do to control the price of oil was to own the spigot.
OPEC spent the 1970s raising oil prices, the United States could have ended its dependency on Arab oil by tapping into existing wells in the United States, or drilling new wells in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California, or in Alaska. Environmentalists funded by the oil industry and other wealthy industrialists lobbied Congress to prevent drilling in any "environmentally-sensitive" areas—which to the environmentalists meant anywhere in North America. The oil pimps preferred drilling in sand rather than rock.
The birth of the 'environmental crisis' was concoted by the international communists a long time ago. It's very well documented. What you're seeing now is how tyrants impose more totalitarian government and in the case of these United States of America, the destruction of private property rights just for starters.
It's time for the American people to reevaluate their place in the world, their role in history, and what is in store for them if they do not take back their own destiny. Oil is not a commodity that can trusted to any one man, any one family or a close knit cartel of powerful, greedy men at the pinnacle of power even in a free enterprise system like the United States that is controlled by special interest groups funded by cartels of powerful, greedy men who are reshaping the world into a one world political, economic and religious entity only because it suits their purpose to do so.
The American people—and their government (those folks in bed in Big Oil and Big Business which fills their campaign war chests with millions of quid pro quo dollars)—need to realize what Franklin D. Roosevelt realized in 1935. If the pimps and prostitutes of Big Business are not restrained, their greed will destroy the rest of us.
What does not exist on Capitol Hill is the will to do it. Congress—on both sides of the aisle—has been in bed with the enemy for so long they no longer recognize the enemy as the enemy. To most of them, the enemy is us, a nation of working class stiffs who are patriotically known as "we the people." - vind, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Hopefully the first in a growing trend of independently produced energy!
- inactive, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6LOL - fat Ted Kennedy does not want his precious view blocked. He makes me ILL. Anyways if we lucky he won't be alive much longer.
- gweedo767, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7We do drill domestically. Crap, I live in a town where tons of people's lively hood is only because of the oil industry (Plainville, KS).
- steveiskfc, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Canada already produces more oil than it needs.
- BigManOnCampus, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Because the roofing material used in construction is sod grass.
- BESTenemy, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Alberta tar sands? So, they're not building a refinery in Canada, at the source, I take it? This begs the question whether Canada plans to become like Iran in the near future, becoming a net exporter of oil, and a net importer of gasoline. I mean, if Canadian's were smarter about this, they'd set refineries right there in Alberta. They have already practically given up the rights to fishing fields importing a big chunk of what Asia's extracting practically off their coast. Now they're letting protential gas profits slip away. Good for us, I mean, but... I just don't know. If they're concerned for the environment, then shipping crude just south of the border will only be as clean as the direction the wind takes on any given day. The sand extraction process is already as environmentally unfriendly as coal mining. They don't mind getting the sand... but...
Well, my knowledge on the subject is limited. Does anyone know what Alberta's side of the deal is? What are they getting out of it? - bincoder, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Yaaay!
Now 10 more for each state would be dandy and fine! The jobs are needed anyway and if we end up with too much gas and refining capacity, all the better.
Let the Venezuelas of the world send their oil here for conversion to gasoline, for a change. For a tidy fee, of course. - inactive, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6"It's just a way of making a traditional vehicle more efficient. "
Which eventually evolves into losing the gas aspect altogether, right?
So you're for massive upheaval and sweeping change rather than evolution?
Well then start the grassroots campaign to criminalize the internal combustion engine. That'll really get the ball rolling on alternative energy. - edifice98, on 06/05/2008, -3/+8 Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.
A Real Change Campaign to Lower Your Gas Prices
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/peti ... - inactive, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5So we should just essentially stagnate until we finally create a wonderful, environmentally friendly, cost effective alternative energy supply? That's like essentially putting a halt horse-drawn carriages in 1900 because in a couple of decades there will be cars that will be more affordable than they were in 1900 and available to the masses.
- 3tcp, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Environmentalists are the problem because they don't differentiate between 'extreme' environmentalists and regular ones when they vote for a politician. Politicians are dubbed 'environmentally friendly' by courting the extremists, not by proposing bills that protect jobs & can get passed.
- wonderbriefs, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Tornadoes anyone?
- tak84, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5I agree. I see nuclear power as a great alternative. Most importantly, however, we need to look at the situation removed from politics and government intervention. Ethanol became economically viable because of government subsidies on corn. Naturally people are going to look for the road paved with welfare checks when it comes to choosing the next way to power their lifestyle. Meanwhile nuclear energy is clean and safe but, for all intents and purposes, banned by the federal government.
- Birukun, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6I meant DRILL MORE!
Power to the people of Plainville! - inactive, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7We don't need to look for alternate energy sources. We have good ones. It's the hippies that are keeping us from fully using nuclear power, though.
"NIMBY" hurts everyone. - solidsnake1298, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5You obviously haven't read the articles about biofuels creating the food shortage and food price increases. Biofuels are a waste of money and resources. It takes 25% of the corn industry to produce enough fuel to power less then 5% of the US's vehicles. Nuff said.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is