Chevron Revenue Posting

eileenbunny said:
What do you mean by a "national call to the development of alternative fuel sources"? How can this be accomplished? Did you watch the state of the union address?
Click to expand...
By the end of the decade I want to send a man to the moon. Same thing, only a bit different.
 
FlyNavy said:
Lofty goals but you forget that the largest obstacle is agreeing on how to meet them.
Click to expand...
We sent a man to the moon, we can achieve these technological gaps.
 
djduquet said:
We sent a man to the moon, we can achieve these technological gaps.
Click to expand...
We sent a man to the moon because the big issue at the time was communism. The Cold War put a man on the moon, not a desire to explore. No one in America wanted to see a Red Moon so pretty much everyone agree that it had to be done. In terms of science it was a great thing to achieve but considering the cost many believe it was an incredible waste of money. We get a lot out of space exploration but the moon itself didn't teach us much.

The problem is that these days there are too many issues that people disagree on to think that they'll all agree on how to best develope our energy sources. Technological gaps are not the problem, we are.
 
I think I like the EPA restricting drilling. I'm not a tree hugger and I'm anti-government but I think things relating to the enviroment like that we need to think long term effects. If we just drill everywhere and don't start putting some form of resrictions on demand what type of world will we be leaving for our grand kids? Our generation can still enjoy their super oversized status symbol cars and in a few generation super high cancer related deaths due to pollution, rolling power outages, and animal extinction will be all they get to enjoy.

If we are unable to move to alternative fuels for transportation then we need to come up with better options. Like the smaller European cars or better public transportation systems. No matter what we do someone somewhere will still be getting rich and the rest of us will still be getting screwed. Welcome to the real world.
 
Drool-Boy said:
Yeah thats a huge part of the problem right there. People bitch about the price of gas then jump in their super-sized SUV that gets 8mpg by themselves for their daily commute.
Click to expand...

Typically, the people who can afford said vehicles (at least in my application with them) don't really care what it costs to fill the tank; no one LIKES to pay 2.89 a gallon, but if you can afford a $60K H2, the $80.00 to fill the tank is generally a drop in the bucket.

Also, It is not really fair for everyone should point fingers at those who can't car pool; People have different schedules, and in a place as large as the tampabay area it is almost impossible to find someone who works the same hours and even in the same gerenal vicinity.
 
I hate gas prices being as high as they are because essentially, they hurt my bottom line thus affecting my pay.

We have 9 vehicles (8 which are Cargo Vans) and it is costing approx. $90.00 per vehicle, every three days to operate. Then you get the customers bitchin' because you have to charge more just to stay in business.

It sucks, but it as boung to happen and just live everything else eventually we will get used to it, suck it up, and it won;t be such a shocker anymore it will be the norm. Lets hope employers take this in to consideration when it comes to COL raises, promotions, etc.

I have not paid for gas out of my own pocket in over 13 years - with that being said it doesn't hurt as much for me at the pump, but when I cut the check for the company gas bill I want to throw up.
 
b_sinning said:
I think I like the EPA restricting drilling. I'm not a tree hugger and I'm anti-government but I think things relating to the enviroment like that we need to think long term effects. If we just drill everywhere and don't start putting some form of resrictions on demand what type of world will we be leaving for our grand kids? Our generation can still enjoy their super oversized status symbol cars and in a few generation super high cancer related deaths due to pollution, rolling power outages, and animal extinction will be all they get to enjoy.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the EPA doesn't know what's best, doesn't do what's best, and wastes the money that could be used to better protect the environment. EPA regulations clog businesses and waste time, lining the pockets of people that are supposed to be public servants. What's needed is less government and more private, non-profit ownership of natural lands.
 
FlyNavy said:
The problem is that the EPA doesn't know what's best, doesn't do what's best, and wastes the money that could be used to better protect the environment. EPA regulations clog businesses and waste time, lining the pockets of people that are supposed to be public servants. What's needed is less government and more private, non-profit ownership of natural lands.
Click to expand...

I'm all for less government involvement.
 
djduquet said:
Upon the issue of hydrogen for alternative fuel sources. My proposition is not only viable but doable in a decade. What needs to happen is for a national call to the development of alternative fuel sources. If the president were to call for the development of education and technology as Kennedy did for the space race it would do three important things for our economy.

The first would be the stimulation of engineering and the sciences. In order to compete in the global economy and maintain our power economically we need more people in these fields. By a call to development of alternative energy it would give young people an area in which to follow this path. Additionally it would bring about the second most important consequence of this action. That is providing a way for young people to fight the war on terror with out picking up arms. The removal of money from the purchase of fossil fuels from OPEC nations would serve to sever the financial head of terrorism. Sure it is only part of the larger equation yet it would help far more than the current plan our nation and the coalition in which we are apart. The third and final important result is the introduction of an affordable alternative to petrol for energy.

The vision in which I speak is as follows. We need to first develop technology in the solar cell industry. Efficiency needs to sky rocket to harvest the energy of the sun. It can be done and enough energy could be captured to counter days in which the sun does not shine. That energy should then be used in turn to run reverse osmosis systems along the ocean to attain pure water. More energy from the sun would used to split the water into both hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen would then be released into the atmosphere where it can be rejoined again with hydrogen releasing water as the byproduct from fuel cells.

Right now our energy comes from the sun. It just took millions of years for plants and animals to live and die becoming preserved in reservoirs under the crust. What this would do is cut the distance between the sun and the energy that we use now. By doing this many issues could be solved with many positive consequences. It’s not that far fetched and is indeed within the grasp of our technological capabilities with dedication and devotion by the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
That would cost a very very very very very large sum of money and time.

It's estimated that 100sq miles of solar panels in Arizona could power the US.
Is that feasible? No way in hell.
 
wr3kt said:
That would cost a very very very very very large sum of money and time.

It's estimated that 100sq miles of solar panels in Arizona could power the US.
Is that feasible? No way in hell.
Click to expand...
With current technology. We are facing a problem and the cost to develop these things would save money in the long run. Why are so many pesimestic upon this topic? It's doable by far and I've yet to see any data that says we can not accomplish this.
 
eileenbunny said:
Didn't Bush do this in 2003? I think the govt. put up $1.3 billion for a Hydrogen Fuel Initiative at that time.
Click to expand...
He made a half-assed attempt which was severly lacking.
 
djduquet said:
With current technology. We are facing a problem and the cost to develop these things would save money in the long run. Why are so many pesimestic upon this topic? It's doable by far and I've yet to see any data that says we can not accomplish this.
Click to expand...
1) All energy demands are basically being met
2) It's untested, unproven, uninvested. It has the ability to succeed or to fail. Nobody has done anything that extensive and no one (companies or investors) are willing to take that jump.

It's not pessimism, it's risk calculations and don't think someone with the capital to do it hasn't thought of it.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/u...b612566b26af&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, April 30 — The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

Angry constituents have asked, "Do you think we are prostitutes? Do you think you can buy us?" said another Republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan.

Conservative talk radio hosts have been particularly vocal. "What kind of insult is this?" Rush Limbaugh asked on his radio program on Friday. "Instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem." In commentary on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume called the idea "silly."

The reaction comes as the rising price of gasoline has put the public in a volatile mood and as polls show that cynicism about Congress is at its highest level since 1994.

Still, Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, whose office played a main role in pulling the proposal together, said the rebate was an important short-term step in a broader array of measures that began with last year's energy bill. Constituents "believe government ought to step up to the plate rather than loll around in the dugout," Mr. Ueland wrote in an e-mail message on Sunday.

After members of Congress returned from the spring recess, when they got an earful about gas prices above $3 a gallon, they raced to propose solutions that might take effect before the elections. Democrats were pushing for a 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon, and the Senate Republican leadership settled on the rebate.

Those leaders and Finance Committee aides said many Republicans opposed the Democratic plan because they feared that oil companies, which pay the gas tax, would not pass savings on to the public, or that the laws of supply and demand would push the price up again.

There was also the probable opposition of House Republicans, who have been reluctant to jeopardize the flow of the gas tax revenue to the highway trust fund that underwrites road and bridge projects.

"Our folks thought it might amount to nothing for consumers," said one aide who was granted anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations.

Under the proposal, $100 checks would be sent late this summer to an estimated 100 million taxpayers, regardless of car ownership. Single taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above about $146,000 would be ineligible for the checks, as would couples earning more than about $219,000. The $100 figure was determined by Mr. Frist's office, which calculated that the average driver would pay about $11 per month in federal gas taxes over nine months.

The rebate was the signature element of a broader Senate Republican leadership plan announced Thursday that included new incentives for the oil industry to increase its refining capacity and for consumers to buy hybrid cars. It would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling and would impose an accounting change forcing oil companies to pay higher taxes on fuel sold from stockpiles.

The proposal would also give the executive branch new authority to set fuel standards for cars, an idea that will get a hearing in the House this week.

David Winston, a Republican pollster who advises the Senate Republican leadership, called the rebate an intuitive way to show voters that Republicans were on their side. "It is like putting the American family budget ahead of oil company profits," Mr. Winston said. "How do you help the American families out? Well, give them some money."

But disapproval started flowing in almost as soon as the idea surfaced, said aides in several Republican offices. One senior aide to a Southern lawmaker said the calls were surprisingly harsh. Some complained that the rebate would amount to only two fill-ups at the gas station.

Even though some voters have been outspoken in their opposition to the $100 rebate, Democrats still want credit for being the first to think of putting money back in taxpayers' pockets. A few days before the Republicans went public with their plan, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, proposed a $500 rebate plan, a figure that she said was more commensurate with how much the higher gas prices will cost Americans this year.

Ms. Stabenow also criticized Republicans for linking the rebate to oil drilling in the arctic refuge.

Republicans know that drilling in the refuge "is highly controversial and not going to happen," Ms. Stabenow said. "I question their sincerity in putting this forward."

When the Republican program might reach the Senate floor is still uncertain. Mr. Frist had suggested that he might try to attach the plan to the emergency spending bill the Senate is debating, but aides said that was now less likely and that Republicans might ultimately bring their proposal forward on its own.

On television news programs on Sunday, several Republicans emphasized the need for long-term solutions and played down the rebates. "I don't think much about the $100 rebate," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, said on "Late Edition" on CNN. "We're going to have to produce more domestic oil, natural gas. We're going to have to build pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants."

Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, struck a similar note on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "I don't think it's a real answer," she said. "It's a temporary Band-Aid. I don't think that it's, again, the long-range solution."

But in his e-mail message, Mr. Ueland, the chief of staff to Senator Frist, dismissed the accusations of pandering as the inevitable price of taking any action. "It's the way of the world to dog Washington when members respond to constituent concerns, but to be responsive is part of how the system is designed."
Click to expand...

Oh my, what an amazing idea!
 
FlyNavy said:
i really dislike politicians :tard:

con is the opposite of pro, congress is the opposite of progress
Click to expand...
I think this was addressed before by Sarcasmo. Is (reliable) public transport in the US impossible to come by? and if it was there, would anyone use it?

I was in Canada this time last year and I actually paid attention to the rail transport system. In 3 weeks I never seen one passenger train go by, even though there were two rail lines side-by-side and the stations were in major cities. I think I remember hearing that the cargo rail companies own the train lines and that passenger companies have to hire these lines every time they wish to use them. Although trains aren't exactly economical; they're fast, efficient and if they're managed correctly, they usually always run on time.

What's stopping the US from building a high-speed line to link major cities? You can hop on a train in London in be in the centre Paris in under 2 hours, or from Paris to Berlin or whereever.

[From SA] Seems like they already have a plan to build a high-speed rail link, though it seems highly unlikely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States
 
it's not impossible, just depends on the area you live in. the first thing a new yorker notices about LA (besides the lack of good pizza) is the fact that everyone drives everywhere. someone in nyc or san fran or chicago can get by without ever owning a car. it a hell of a lot harder to do so in atlanta or tampa or LA.

High speed rail link would be nice but that won't solve any problems because the majority of our personal transportation is commuting. Long distance driving is common but even with a train it won't significantly cut down on the number of drivers because it's a different experience. When I go to another city I don't want to rely on someone else for a ride nor do I want to bother with a rental.
 
FlyNavy said:
Do you know how hard it is to convince a bunch of old conservative rednecks that their trucks are not safer than those "wissy little plastic pieces LOL NASCAR"?:tard:
Click to expand...
Bring 'em to a small-to-medium sized car crusher, toss in a Saab 900 and then a 3/4 ton anything and have 'em watch which one gets crushed faster :fly:


My f-i-l used to run one, and told me you couldn't crush a Saab or older VW - had to torch them apart first :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back