bbtitle]
» CC HOME » FORUM HOME

Go Back   College Confidential > College Admissions and Search > Parents Forum > Parent Cafe > Parent Cafe - Election and Politics
New User

Welcome to College Confidential, the leading college-bound community on the Web!
 
Here you'll find hundreds of pages of articles about choosing a college, getting into the college you want, how to pay for it, and much more. You'll also find the Web's busiest discussion community related to college admissions, and our College Visits section!

You are currently viewing the site as a guest.
Registration is simple and easy, and provides full site access.

Join our FREE community:

  • Post and reply to topics
  • Talk privately with other members
  • Participate in polls
  • View less ads
  • Remove this welcome message

 REGISTER NOW

Discussion Menu
»Discussion Home
»Help & Rules
»Latest Posts
»NEW! College Visits
»NEW! Stats Profiles
Top Forums
»College Search
»College Admissions
»Financial Aid
»SAT/ACT
»Parents
»Colleges
»Ivy League
Main CC Site
»College Confidential
»College Search
»College Admissions
»Paying for College
Sponsors
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-03-2009, 11:58 PM   #436
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
Quote:
Funny how you ignore my post and Mini's.
Are you ever going to answer #345, the one about this...

Quote:
The problem with ANWR is that we can't refine most of the oil that could be produced up there. Our refineries, for the part, can only refine light sweet crude and ANWR oil is a much heavier type. What would most likely end up happening is that the vast majority of the oil would be sent to China who has the refining capabilities.
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 01:46 AM   #437
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 261
Let me look it up ...

In the mean time, here is some info about ANWR from your friendly WSJ to tide you over:

Don’t Expect Too Much From ANWR - Real Time Economics - WSJ
zotan is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 03:23 PM   #438
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SoCal.
Posts: 2,640
I support drilling ANWR because it creates jobs. We need jobs.
Mr Payne is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 06:20 PM   #439
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
Thanks for the link, zotan, but, while it addresses two of the more delicious arguments I've seen against drilling ANWR, namely...

-It won't help us today, because it'll take 10 years to get the oil flowing.

-And, it'll only lower oil prices by 75 cents (from the blog).

I always enjoy hearing these but they don't really bear on the fact that roughly a trillion dollars would stay in the US, instead of going to countries that don't really care for us.

Not to mention the jobs.
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 06:42 PM   #440
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,771
^^And just think, if Bill Clinton had approved drilling ten years ago, oil would be flowing today!
bluebayou is online now   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 06:44 PM   #441
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 499
The argument that it will take 10 years to accomplish results is a weak one.

It took just under 10 years to put a man on the moon, but a long journey begins with many steps, does it not?

I believe we should explore every option when it comes to energy development.
littlegreenmom is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 10:54 PM   #442
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
Good point, lgm.

I wonder how many Greens realize that the deepwater fields in the Gulf of Mexico, the same ones that are currently supplying oil for the gasoline they use or natural gas for fertilizer feedstock, electricity generation, and home heating, had lead times almost as long.

It's only a problem with ANWR, it seems.
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Old 07-04-2009, 11:51 PM   #443
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 50
^^^
The reason zotan can't find the link is because it's not true. The US already processes heavy, sour crude from Venezuela, and Mexican Mayan crude, which is heavy and 3.3% sulphur (in other words, quite sour).

Analysis of crude oil types and Iranian shortage of refining capacity :: The Market Oracle :: Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting Free Website

"As part of Chavez's "Socialist Revolution," he's implicitly and/or explicitly threatened to cut off US oil supplies; Venezuela exports roughly 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to the US, including both raw crude and oil products. That puts Venezuela behind only Canada and Mexico as a source of petroleum for the American market. In the context of the current tight global crude market, this would seem to be a significant potential problem.

Chavez has, of course, followed up this rhetoric with stunts like offering subsidized heating oil to poor in the US and even getting Joe Kennedy to front that effort. He's also talked with China and the left-leaning mayor of London about ways for Venezuela to divert more of its oil to these countries and away from the US.

But it's important to understand the myriad issues with Chavez's plan. First, much of Venezuela's crude is heavy and/or sour crude.

Oils are typically described based on two basic properties-- specific gravity and sulphur content . Without delving into too much detail, specific gravity measures the density of a substance compared to the density of pure water. According to the standard scientific definition, the specific gravity of water is 1; if a substance has a specific gravity less than 1, it's less dense than water and will float.

.....

This measure isn't meaningless from a refiner's standpoint. Specifically, light crude oils are simpler to refine than heavy crude oils. That's because your typical barrel of light crude oil will tend to yield a higher quantity of useful products such as gasoline per-barrel refined.

Refining light crude into gasoline is a less-complex process than refining heavy crude. Using some more-complex processes, the gasoline yield of heavy crude oils can be increased tremendously. But not all refineries can handle heavy crude economically. That is why light crudes typically trade at a premium valuation to heavy crudes.

The second key terms to understand are sweet and sour . These terms have absolutely nothing to do with taste; rather, both terms refer to the sulphur content of the crude oil. Sweet crudes are relatively low in sulphur, while sour crudes have a higher naturally occurring sulphur content.

The bottom line about all of this is that the most-commonly quoted type of crude oil is light, sweet crude. This is also one of the most-expensive, highest-quality types of crude oil on the planet.

Standard Maya crude has an API gravity of 22 degrees and a sulphur content of 3.3 percent; it's a heavy, sour crude.

Here's the problem for Venezuela: The country has no alternative market to the US for much of its crude. One useful measure in this regard is a refinery's complexity index . Refineries that are able to run heavier, more-sour feedstocks are said to be more complex than refineries that can only run light, sweet crude.

There are a few different ways to measure this, but one of the simplest is to compare a refinery's conversion capacity to its total throughput capacity . Without delving into too much detail, suffice it to say that conversion capacity is what allows a refiner to process heavy, sour crudes.

Venezuela has total refining capacity of about 1.28 million barrels of crude oil per day. The country's total conversion capacity is less than 40 percent of that amount; my crude measure of complexity stands at 38 percent. Venezuela is woefully incapable of refining even a small part of its crude domestically, so it must export that oil to countries where it can be refined.

Of course, the Venezuelan government-owned oil company, doing business as Citgo in the US, owns refineries abroad--mainly in the US mainland and in the US Virgin Islands (St. Croix). Citgo either owns outright or holds a large stake in another 1.1 million barrels per day worth of refining capacity located in the US.

The complexity index for its US-based refineries stands at 83 percent. Obviously, these refineries were set up with the express purpose of handling Venezuelan heavy crude oil imports into the US market. And, as a whole, US refineries are among the most complex in the world; it's a logical importer of Venezuela's crude.

How about those other potential markets? China has total refining capacity of about 6.25 million barrels per day. But the complexity index for these refineries is only 15.5 percent; China can't adequately refine heavy crudes, so the vast majority of Venezuelan oil exports would be useless to China."
randomthots is offline   Reply   
Old 07-05-2009, 01:55 AM   #444
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 261
I stand corrected then.

Isn't this thread getting a bit old though? It's kind of a moot argument, considering that the EPA is going to regulate greenhouse gases if Waxman-Markey fails.
zotan is offline   Reply   
Old 07-05-2009, 02:00 AM   #445
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
I've been there myself, zotan.

As to whether it's a moot point, wouldn't you consider all of the Political threads to be useless, then?

I mean, they don't really matter, do they?
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Old 07-05-2009, 11:26 AM   #446
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 191
Quote:
It's kind of a moot argument, considering that the EPA is going to regulate greenhouse gases if Waxman-Markey fails.
Who heads the EPA and who appointed that person? Are you suggesting that the EPA is some independent organization that is not held accountable to the American people? In reality, Obama has the fix in - either he gets his way via the Democratic-controlled Congress or he gets it by mandate from the executive branch. It wouldn't surprise me if he already has the fix in with the Supreme Court should all else fail.

Last edited by fundingfather; 07-05-2009 at 11:33 AM.
fundingfather is offline   Reply   
Old 07-05-2009, 09:56 PM   #447
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
For political reasons, let's do tax fossil fuels to make alternative sources seem attractive... it's the perfect time to do it.

Quote:
And households, already crimped by falling home prices, mounting job losses and credit pressures, are once more forced to monitor their discretionary spending as energy prices rise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/bu...l?ref=business

(After all, it's a crisis with a consensus - what better time to ram the legislation through?)
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Old 07-06-2009, 04:11 PM   #448
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,667
Just turn off heating / airconditionning at home and work, it will "improve" productivity or maybe,... just help to decide to move the office where it belongs: China, Russia, India. These countries are more than happy with the way our country is going, they cannot wait.
MiamiDAP is offline   Reply   
Old 07-06-2009, 06:13 PM   #449
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dad of 3 in college in California
Posts: 1,003
Actually, MiamiDAP may have an interesting suggestion, there. My next door neighbors runs their A/C constantly - it goes on as soon as the thermometer hits 80 and stays on until it falls below 70 - probably 100 or mare days a year. We run our A/C maybe five to ten times a year. Open the windows at night when it cools down, close up during the day - trees to the southwest block the late afternoon sun. The house stays comfortable as long as it doesn't stay hot at night (which is rare around here.) We don't really need to use a lot of electricity to run A/C. But my neighbors sure so. At my office, the committee opted to pass up a PV lease which would have provided 60% of our electric usage at no net cost to us because "our electric bill isn't that high anyway. Why bother?"

Maybe electricity is too cheap.

(And this is California - with our tiered rates I'm sure my neighbors are paying $.36 per KwH for some of that A/C. That's the unsubsidized cost of a residential PV system.)
kluge is offline   Reply   
Old 07-06-2009, 10:01 PM   #450
New Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: tx
Posts: 17
Wasn't it Willie Sutton who said; “Because that’s where the money is.”?

He’d nod approvingly at this, I believe.

Quote:
To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Quote:
By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.
catahoula is offline   Reply   
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
“Global Warming”: smothering vital Global solutions. Woodwork Parent Cafe - Election and Politics 1 10-21-2008 10:19 AM
Global warming or not so much barrons Parent Cafe 144 10-04-2007 01:30 AM
Global Warming Smallz3141 College Confidential Cafe 6 05-03-2007 09:15 PM
Finally:Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics simba Parent Cafe 5 01-12-2007 11:11 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 PM.


Copyright 2001-2009, Hobsons, Inc., All Rights Reserved