RSS
Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor
Drilling in protected areas not the answer to high gas prices
STORY TOOLS
Share and Enjoy
More Letters to the Editor
Rate this Article
I do not like paying $4.19 per gallon of gas in Florida, $3.79 in Anderson, or seeing people around the country paying well over $4 for a gallon of gas. But to open drilling in currently restricted areas would simply mean that Americans would not change their lifestyle, as we now must, to reduce the impact of high gas prices.
The advantage at the moment to higher gas prices is that Detroit is finally taking notice of the situation and producing small, more gas-efficient cars. Traffic accidents and deaths are down. The amount of greenhouse gases being produced and emitted into the atmosphere is down.
The Bush administration has done nothing for our environment for almost eight years. If his policies continue, our Earth will be in a dire situation.
If drilling were authorized today, we would not see any change in gas prices for several years. Currently there are insufficient numbers of ships that can undertake offshore drilling for leases that have already been granted, and sites selected.
Car pooling and thinking “Is this trip to the corner store really necessary?” before getting into the car will make a difference. Had our congressmen done something 7-1/2 years ago to reduce our use of fossil fuels, we would not be in the same position we are in today. Reducing our waste of fossil fuels will help conserve our own reserves, reduce our dependence on foreign fuels (by using less) and will help save our environment.
Richard Morand, Anderson
Comments
There are 11 responses to this article.
Comments are meant to offer our readers a forum for thoughtful, robust debate about local issues.
Comments are moderated, but you may find the content of the conversations offensive, objectionable or factually disputable.
IndependentMail.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before you post, consider this:
Please read our official user-contributions policy.
I see you have no clue as to what you are saying.
"Energy has enormous implications for our economy, our environment and our national security," President Bush said in proposing the plan. "We cannot let another year go by without addressing these issues together in a comprehensive and balanced package."
That was in June 2001 - more than seven years ago.
His words came just after he first proposed a comprehensive energy bill that included 105 separate steps the U.S. could take to boost its energy supplies. It was something he promised repeatedly while campaigning for the presidency in 2000. He kept his promise. To see more of this read what I have posted at http://tinyurl.com/55cr32
After you visit it and read my post, maybe then you'll have a clue Mr. Morand.
Presidents of the US, going back to Reagan or even Carter, have made speeches on being energy independent of other countries. Never seemed to be a concern of most Americans over all those years by their wasteful use of energy.
in response to Niblits
Posted by Niblits on August 21, 2008 at 7:54 a.m.
"Presidents of the US, going back to Reagan or even Carter, have made speeches on being energy independent of other countries."
Excellent comment, Niblits!
Actually, it goes back to much earlier times, though.
In 1996, I began studying the future prospects of rising fossil fuel prices because of information I had begun receiving. After extensive research, I began promoting even then, the use of alternative, replenishable, environmentally sound, bio-fuels technology. I knew then that the oil companies and other factions of nay-sayers would distort the facts, should bio-fuels start capturing increasing interest and attention. In fact:
"President Clinton and I will strongly and actively oppose any effort to eliminate the ethanol program. We challenge Congress to do what is right for our farmers, our rural communities, our environment, and our national security." (V.P. Al Gore, 04-20-1996).
Of course, the problem back then was that, under the Clinton administration, we had a strong economy, a balanced budget, and fossil fuel costs were right at $1 per gallon and dropping.
"Ethanol production increases farm income, decreases deficiency payments, creates jobs in rural America, and reduces America's reliance on foreign oil." (Pres. Bill Clinton, Oct. 1996).
"Our overall gasahol program will spur investments that we, together, must make for a more secure energy future. We will create new markets for our farmers. We will no longer have to throw away waste materials which can be turned into profitable essential fuels." (Pres. Jimmy Carter, 01-11-1980).
"They say we have foreign oil. Well, how are we going to get it in case of war? It is in Venezuela... it is in the East, in Persia and it is in Russia. Do you think that is much defense for your children?" (Francis Garvan [Pres. Chem. Foundation], 1936).
So, now we see that this has been known to be a problem even back in 1936.
"We can get fuel from fruit, from the sumac by the roadside, or from apples, weeds, sawdust, almost anything. There is enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to cultivate that field for a hundred years. And it remains for someone to find how this fuel can be produced commercially--- BETTER FUEL at a BETTER PRICE than we now know." (Henry Ford, 1908).
In fact, the Model T was actually the first FFV built in large quantities, since it could run on both gasoline and a gasoline/alcohol blend. Oh, and btw, the Model T got about 22 mpg even back 100 years ago. Makes you think, huh?
"According to a 5-laboratory study for the DOE, cars fueled by biomass-generated ethanol generate approximately 1/2 of 1% of the CARBON DIOXIDE that is produced by the SAME car burning gasoline." (Jim Woolsey, 04-03-1998).
Since I'm about out of space, I'll stop here for now.
Plain.
Simple.
Common Sense.
Capt. Leonardo Ortiz (USMM)
in response to Capt_Leo
...en continuum...
What has happened is that now that interest in bio-fuels have gained momentum, the oil companies and other nay-sayer factions have started gettting out misinformation in order to deter growth in attention and interest in a readily available, replenishable, environmentally positive, fuel source in which the technology is already here and ready to use now, rather than looking 15 yrs from now.
Let's see the facts here:
According to laboratory studies, a bushel of corn used in the fuel ethanol process produces 1.6 lbs of corn oil, 10.9 lbs of high-protein feed, 2.6 lbs of corn meal, AND 2.5 gallons of ethanol.
Notice the use of AND rather than "or".
"A blend of 10% alcohol and 90% gasoline makes a better fuel than an all-gasoline fuel...quicker starting, more pep, less carbon deposits, and greater mileage... A blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline makes still a better fuel, and a blend of 20% alcohol and 80% gasoline is still better." (Iowa State College Chemistry Dept. report to the Iowa Legislature, 1932).
Yes... even back in 1932!
When you burn alcohol, the by-product is carbon DIOXIDE and WATER.
Contra burning gasoline, which accounts for 55.8+% of the total air pollution in the US, 77.3% of the total carbon MONOXIDE, 44.5% of Nitrogen Oxides, 3.3% of Sulfur Oxides, 35.6% Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), 26.3% Particulate Matter, and 26.6% Lead. All of which is emitted into the air... that we breathe. This is based on an American Lung Association study.
Currently, according to the World Bank, fuel ethanol production would comparably be about the equivalent to crude oil at about $19 per barrel.
So, bio-fuels technology is here right now. Available for use right now. Which can IMMEDIATELY drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels RIGHT NOW.
WITHOUT causing a rise in food prices... actually food prices would drop because transportation costs would drop.
WITHOUT hurting your current engine if you were to burn a maximum of 25% ethanol blended with 75% gasoline.
HELPING sustain the environment, since the by-product is water and carbon dioxide, which is required by plants in breathing carbon dioxide and then expelling oxygen.
WITHOUT losing, but ACTUALLY GAINING net energy in production. USDA & the Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture found in a study that ethanol production yields a NET GAIN of 125%, while all other forms of liquid transportational fuel options actually yield a NET LOSS.
BTW, I filled my little truck the other day with E-85 (I have an FFV), at $2.89 when Reg. Gas was $3.39... a savings of 50 Cents per gallon. And I still average about 26 mpg, either way.
Plain.
Simple.
Common Sense.
Capt. Leonardo Ortiz (USMM)
in response to Capt_Leo
I do not advocate the use of bio-fuels as the ONLY solution... just as the CURRENT solution which we can use right now by taking full advantage of the technology being here already, while we continue to forge ahead with other, more advanced technologies to be tested better, but without waiting 20 years.
Plain.
Simple.
Common Sense.
Capt. Leonardo Ortiz (USMM)
www.ortizforsenate.org
in response to Capt_Leo
I agree with most of what you say, the only problem is if you as I, are still running carbrator injected engines, it is bad for them, but if you use these products in fuel injected engines there is no problem.
Thank you for an excellent letter. It's so good to hear someone who knows what they are talking about on the subject of drilling. We can never drill our way out of the energy problem.
Isn't it amazing that after Bush lifted the ban on drilling, that the price of a barrel of oil dropped? So, maybe we can drill our way out of this!
in response to CobraKR101
Oil prices dropped because demand dropped. Did you not see the oil prices surge again the other day?
in response to Freedom_Of_Speech
Posted by Clutchburner on August 21, 2008 at 6:21 p.m.
"I agree with most of what you say, the only problem is if you as I, are still running carbrator injected engines, it is bad for them, but if you use these products in fuel injected engines there is no problem."
Actually, that was another myth that was perpetrated back in the late-70's when ethanol started gaining momentum in attention.
Although a vehicle not properly equipped or converted to us E-85 should never use that high a percentage of alcohol as fuel, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition found through studies that ANY internal combustion gasoline engine in operation today, whether fuel injected or carburated, including small engines (yes, even outboards, motorcycles, mopeds, generators, and lawnmowers) can safely and efficiently run up to E-25 (up to 25% ethanol) without modification or conversion.
Other myths that have been perpetrated by some nay-sayers of ethanol include false claims that ethanol blended fuels will make engines run hotter, cause vapor locks, plug up fuel lines, etc.
Vapor locks were from earlier technology which occured regardless of whether you used ethanol blends or straight gasoline.
Ethanol actually helps an engine run cooler, not hotter.
And the cleansing nature of ethanol can actually keep your entire fuel system cleaner, without having that carbon build-up that we used to see in carburators.
Now, if you're driving an older vehicle whereby its continual fuel has been gasoline, then there are probably contaminants and residues in the fuel lines. These deposits may be loosened by ethanol since ethanol cleans the fuel lines. In older vehicles, you could run E-20 (blend of 20% ethanol and 80% gasoline) for a few tankfuls, then change the fuel filter in order to remove any particles of previous debris from the lines. Once this has been done, you should see better mileage and better performance from your vehicle.
Hope this info helps.
BTW, I have been working on coordinating a Community Information Seminar Presentation for the near future at the Library. I tentatively had it scheduled for Sept. 15th, but I'll have to change the date, since the professor who I wish to get to do the presentation will not be able to do it on the 15th. Contact me if you are interested in attending.
Thanks.
Plain.
Simple.
Common Sense.
Capt. Leonardo Ortiz (USMM)
I agree with all you said about ethanol production Capt. Leo. I think we should use ethanol.
I, also, think we should use all other available energy sources with one goal in mind, No OPEC Oil ASAP.
We have been talking about our energy problems for years, but kept wasting fuel, failed to develop alternative fuel sources and made the OPEC Nations rich. Some of those nations have used our oil money to buy bombs, guns and other weapons to use against us.
It is past time to stop talking. It is time to take action. If we don't break our addiction to OPEC Oil we will always be crawling to them and begging for another "Fix".
We all need to write the politicians in Washington and let them know we are tired of them playing politics with our future and it is time for them to get serious about our energy needs.
Our message should be plain and simple, "Find the funds (even if you have to take a pay cut)for the development of energy sources that will end our dependency on OPEC or starting working on your resume."
(Requires free registration.)