100 replies to this topic

[missminni]

the environmental issues sound more like fear-mongering than anything else. what you don't seem to realize is that holding up the development of new oil fields and the construction of new refineries are simply supply-side restrictions that are transferring huge wealth to the oil economies of the Middle East. The purchase of the Chrylser building for 800 million dollars by Abu Dhabi is a prime example of that and given the number of loonies who will claim it will become a haven for terrorists I think its the sort of thing you might really want to worry about.

Take a look at the refining companies out there and research a little thing called "Crack spread". This is the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of the commodity made from that crude oil. You want lower gas prices. Build new refineries in the United States, but Congress won't allow that. Take a stab at a little research and find out when the last refinery was built in the US.

Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other Middle Eastern companies are spending billions of dollars upgrading their refineries to product Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, and gasoline.

Talk about fear mongering....that's what you're doing. This city and country has been bought up by foreign countries for years now. Even infrastructure like highways are foreign-owned. The chrysler building is no big deal . Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Europeans own tons of real estate all over this city for a long time now. So? What is your point. Oh that's right mo' oil refineries. Why not develop other sources of energy with that money? Why do you want to stay a slave to oil?

Edited by missminni, 15 July 2008 - 02:14 AM.

[niner]

look whose talking about personal responsibility.

Mike, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've always been big on personal responsibility. What does the term mean to you?

Isn't it obvious Mr niner

Well, since I don't believe I've ever advocated anything other than personal responsibility on this forum, what it looks like is that you've taken a couple of my beliefs and pigeonholed me according to your own erroneous stereotype of a "liberal". Do you also think that I put on my Birkenstocks, jumped in the Volvo, and drove down to Starbucks to pick up a Grande Latte on my way to work at the ACLU?

[mike250]

look whose talking about personal responsibility.

Mike, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've always been big on personal responsibility. What does the term mean to you?

Isn't it obvious Mr niner

Well, since I don't believe I've ever advocated anything other than personal responsibility on this forum, what it looks like is that you've taken a couple of my beliefs and pigeonholed me according to your own erroneous stereotype of a "liberal". Do you also think that I put on my Birkenstocks, jumped in the Volvo, and drove down to Starbucks to pick up a Grande Latte on my way to work at the ACLU?

you mean you've never advocated anything other than big government and nanny state, that I believe is more accurate.

[mike250]

the environmental issues sound more like fear-mongering than anything else. what you don't seem to realize is that holding up the development of new oil fields and the construction of new refineries are simply supply-side restrictions that are transferring huge wealth to the oil economies of the Middle East. The purchase of the Chrylser building for 800 million dollars by Abu Dhabi is a prime example of that and given the number of loonies who will claim it will become a haven for terrorists I think its the sort of thing you might really want to worry about.

Take a look at the refining companies out there and research a little thing called "Crack spread". This is the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of the commodity made from that crude oil. You want lower gas prices. Build new refineries in the United States, but Congress won't allow that. Take a stab at a little research and find out when the last refinery was built in the US.
the pdf I've read said 1.8 trillion barrels
Saudi Arabia, Dubai and other Middle Eastern companies are spending billions of dollars upgrading their refineries to product Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, and gasoline.

Talk about fear mongering....that's what you're doing. This city and country has been bought up by foreign countries for years now. Even infrastructure like highways are foreign-owned. The chrysler building is no big deal . Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Europeans own tons of real estate all over this city for a long time now. So? What is your point. Oh that's right mo' oil refineries. Why not develop other sources of energy with that money? Why do you want to stay a slave to oil?

Point taken on the foreigner issue. However the foreigner issue is the point of fear mongering of numerous politicians come time of the purchase e.g Dubai worlds port deal.

regarding the refineries, most US refineries are not setup to produce diesel. Its a very small percentage.

Now, we could build more refineries to do this...oh wait..no we can't. Congress has blocked that. The environmentalists don't like it.

When we go and buy that 87-93 octane, China buys diesel. Now we could drill, refine that oil into diesel and sell it..oh wait...Congress has blocked that too.


Look I'm not saying drilling is the "answer". There is no one answer. However drilling will help and the amount of oil recoverable from the east coast, west coast, gulf, oil shale is more than twice that of what Saudia Arabia has in reserve (250 billion).

http://fossil.energy..._Fact_Sheet.pdf

I'm well aware that the same people who bought oil companies stocks and/or futures are the same investing in solar, wind, batteries, etc....the free market always has brought new technology and answers to existing problems and always will.

now lets look at those alternative energy sources:

Nuclear Power is viable, but no one wants one in their backyard because of ignorant fear and sheer stupidity.maybe we need to learn from France.

Solar Power is not viable, because the current efficiency rate of buildable and sellable units has yet to climb above 28%.

Wind Power is viable, but its expensive as hell and requires fairly high wind velocities to work, not to mention space. And the public is all for wind power as long as it's not near their home.

Corn to Ethanol as fuel, don't make me laugh. Any self-respecting chemical engineer will tell you that entire thing is a sham. South America gets away with it because they use sugar cane. There are some viable alternatives through the use of micro-algae as well, but that requires you to still drill, refine, and supply gasoline as well.

Electric Cars is not currently viable and would require a HUGE change in infrastructure to make it viable. There are other fuel cells in development that may yield results, but electric isn't the answer.

Hydroelectric has its uses, but there aren't enough rivers to make that viable.

Coal, Natural Gas, and Crude Oil are your products like it or not . so for a while we're going to be stuck with those considering that other technologies will not spawn over-night.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 03:19 AM.

[niner]

look whose talking about personal responsibility.

Mike, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've always been big on personal responsibility. What does the term mean to you?

Isn't it obvious Mr niner

Well, since I don't believe I've ever advocated anything other than personal responsibility on this forum, what it looks like is that you've taken a couple of my beliefs and pigeonholed me according to your own erroneous stereotype of a "liberal". Do you also think that I put on my Birkenstocks, jumped in the Volvo, and drove down to Starbucks to pick up a Grande Latte on my way to work at the ACLU?

you mean you've never advocated anything other than big government and nanny state, that I believe is more accurate.

Hmm. Let's see. I guess by "nanny state" you'd be referring to the fact that I think it's ok for a society to decide that it doesn't want to allow smoking in restaurants and bars. What exactly is "big government" that I've advocated? Somewhere along the line I'm pretty sure that I've come out in favor of sensible handgun laws. Is that "big government" or "nanny state"? I'm also on record opposing military adventures that harm us strategically. Is that a no-no, too? I also think we should balance the damn budget, and if we can't cut spending we should raise taxes to do it. What I don't see is WTF any of this has to do with personal responsibility, which is very important to me.

[mike250]

look whose talking about personal responsibility.

Mike, I can't tell what you mean by this. I've always been big on personal responsibility. What does the term mean to you?

Isn't it obvious Mr niner

Well, since I don't believe I've ever advocated anything other than personal responsibility on this forum, what it looks like is that you've taken a couple of my beliefs and pigeonholed me according to your own erroneous stereotype of a "liberal". Do you also think that I put on my Birkenstocks, jumped in the Volvo, and drove down to Starbucks to pick up a Grande Latte on my way to work at the ACLU?

you mean you've never advocated anything other than big government and nanny state, that I believe is more accurate.

Hmm. Let's see. I guess by "nanny state" you'd be referring to the fact that I think it's ok for a society to decide that it doesn't want to allow smoking in restaurants and bars. What exactly is "big government" that I've advocated? Somewhere along the line I'm pretty sure that I've come out in favor of sensible handgun laws. Is that "big government" or "nanny state"? I'm also on record opposing military adventures that harm us strategically. Is that a no-no, too? I also think we should balance the damn budget, and if we can't cut spending we should raise taxes to do it. What I don't see is WTF any of this has to do with personal responsibility, which is very important to me.

I'm going to apologize about the earlier remark about responsibility because that was misguided. Points taken on military adventures and the budget. "Sensible" gun laws sounds like another round of gun control which there is already plenty of.Kommiefornia has just passed a bill that outlaws lead bullets for all big game hunting in almost half the state.There has been a federal ban on all lead shot for waterfowl for a LONG time now. This law makes sense as the ducks and geese swallowed the lead shot when searching for things to eat and small stones that help them digest food. however under the new ban loads are basically copper only bullets and only a couple manufactures make them and they are VERY EXPENSIVE. looks like we have to man up and hunt using bows.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 03:27 AM.

[missminni]

Point taken on the foreigner issue. However the foreigner issue is the point of fear mongering of numerous politicians come time of the purchase e.g Dubai worlds port deal

Well the timing on that couldn't have been worse. Any other time and it would have gone unnoticed.

now lets look at the alternative energy sources:

Nuclear Power is viable, but no one wants one in their backyard because of ignorant fear and sheer stupidity.maybe we need to learn from France.

Given all the choices and learning from the French, it just might be the thing that gets us to point B.

Solar Power is not viable, because the current efficiency rate of buildable and sellable units has yet to climb above 28%.

It still can be used in certain applications.

Wind Power is viable, but its expensive as hell and requires fairly high wind velocities to work, not to mention space. And the public is all for wind power as long as it's not near their home.
Texas Oil Billionaire T-Bone Pickens is developing it with his own funds. Isn't that refreshing.


Corn to Ethanol as fuel, don't make me laugh. Any self-respecting chemical engineer will tell you that entire thing is a sham. South America gets away with it because they use sugar cane. There are some viable alternatives through the use of micro-algae as well, but that requires you to still drill, refine, and supply gasoline as well.

Electric Cars is not currently viable and would require a HUGE change in infrastructure to make it viable. There are other fuel cells in development that may yield results, but electric isn't the answer.


Hydroelectric has its uses, but there aren't enough rivers to make that viable.

Coal, Natural Gas, and Crude Oil are your products like it or not . so for a while we're going to be stuck with those.

We're not stuck with them. We just need to seque out of them. Cutting back on consumption will help
and that is already better for the environment. I'm even seeing less traffic in the city. It's all good.
Part of the natural progression if we want to advance in a practical manner and not be dependent on a product that is destroying our
environment and controlling our foreign policy. And NO, offshore drilling won't change that one bit.

[mike250]

Point taken on the foreigner issue. However the foreigner issue is the point of fear mongering of numerous politicians come time of the purchase e.g Dubai worlds port deal

Well the timing on that couldn't have been worse. Any other time and it would have gone unnoticed.

now lets look at the alternative energy sources:

Nuclear Power is viable, but no one wants one in their backyard because of ignorant fear and sheer stupidity.maybe we need to learn from France.

Given all the choices and learning from the French, it just might be the thing that gets us to point B.

Solar Power is not viable, because the current efficiency rate of buildable and sellable units has yet to climb above 28%.

It still can be used in certain applications.

Wind Power is viable, but its expensive as hell and requires fairly high wind velocities to work, not to mention space. And the public is all for wind power as long as it's not near their home.
Texas Oil Billionaire T-Bone Pickens is developing it with his own funds. Isn't that refreshing.


Corn to Ethanol as fuel, don't make me laugh. Any self-respecting chemical engineer will tell you that entire thing is a sham. South America gets away with it because they use sugar cane. There are some viable alternatives through the use of micro-algae as well, but that requires you to still drill, refine, and supply gasoline as well.

Electric Cars is not currently viable and would require a HUGE change in infrastructure to make it viable. There are other fuel cells in development that may yield results, but electric isn't the answer.


Hydroelectric has its uses, but there aren't enough rivers to make that viable.

Coal, Natural Gas, and Crude Oil are your products like it or not . so for a while we're going to be stuck with those.

We're not stuck with them. We just need to seque out of them. Cutting back on consumption will help
and that is already better for the environment. I'm even seeing less traffic in the city. It's all good.
Part of the natural progression if we want to advance in a practical manner and not be dependent on a product that is destroying our
environment and controlling our foreign policy. And NO, offshore drilling won't change that one bit.

points taken on the wind power issue. I disagree and still believe offshore drilling can help. Advance we will, thats just the free market at work. However the research is going to take some time and during this time these three sources and nuclear of course (a tried and true technology) are what we have to rely on. The environmental issues are secondary. As long as the U.S. Congress holds up the production from new and exiting fields, then prices will remain high, and the US Congress remains "OPEC's staunchest ally."

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 04:02 AM.

[mike250]

The Big Pander to Big Oil
NYTimes
Published: June 19, 2008

It was almost inevitable that a combination of $4-a-gallon gas, public anxiety and politicians eager to win votes or repair legacies would produce political pandering on an epic scale. So it has, the latest instance being President Bush’s decision to ask Congress to end the federal ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along much of America’s continental shelf.

This is worse than a dumb idea. It is cruelly misleading. It will make only a modest difference, at best, to prices at the pump, and even then the benefits will be years away. It greatly exaggerates America’s leverage over world oil prices. It is based on dubious statistics. It diverts the public from the tough decisions that need to be made about conservation.

There is no doubt that a lot of people have been discomfited and genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But their suffering will not be relieved by drilling in restricted areas off the coasts of New Jersey or Virginia or California. The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage.

The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf. This fiction has been resisted by Barack Obama but foolishly embraced by John McCain, who seemed to be making some sense on energy questions until he jumped aboard the lift-the-ban bandwagon on Tuesday.

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

With that in mind, four influential House Democrats — Edward Markey, Nick Rahall, Rahm Emanuel and Maurice Hinchey — have introduced “use it or lose it” bills that would force the companies to begin exploiting the leases they have before getting any more. Companion bills have been introduced in the Senate, where suspicions also run high that industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town.

This cannot be allowed to happen. The Congressional moratoriums on offshore drilling were put in place in 1981 and reaffirmed by subsequent Congresses to protect coastal economies that depend on clean water and clean coastlines. This was also the essential purpose of supplemental executive orders, the first of which was issued by Mr. Bush’s father in 1990 after the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill the year before.

Given the huge resources available to the energy industry, there is no reason to undo these protections now.

Letter to the editor:

Allowing offshore drilling for gas as a solution to high fuel costs, as President Bush urges Congress to do, is as sensible as growing more food in response to rising levels of obesity or robbing a bank in response to overspending one’s budget.

While it is not popular, the clear answer, as it is in the case of overeating and overspending, is to cut back in the consumption of food, in the consumption of one’s salary and in the consumption of fuel.

Painful as it is, I applaud the $4 gallon because it is the one thing that has finally gotten the public to focus on the fact that we need to consume less. For the first time, one hears from every quarter, turn off the lights in rooms you are not in, recycle that paper, drive less and take public transportation or ride your bike. That is the kind of talk political leaders should be encouraging, not new ways to keep up the old habits.

Sheryl E. Reich
New York, June 19, 2008

Like Jeff Perren said the attitude of those who don't believe that we can drill our way out of the high prices goes something like this:

"Put seeds in the ground now? What's the point? They won't get harvested until Fall. In the meantime, you'll starve. Better to invest in some magic beans that will deliver plenty in... well, I'm a little uncertain about the time frame. But they're magic!"

"But if you plant the magic beans, and horde your food now, you'll be safe until the beans sprout. Oh, you don't want to eat less? Well, we must have a tax to punish the farmers who are taking advantage of your misery. Also, it will be good for you, since it will encourage you to eat less, you glutton."

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 03:57 AM.

[missminni]

points taken on the wind power issue. I disagree and still believe offshore drilling can help. Advance we will, thats just the free market at work. However the research is going to take some time and during this time these three sources (and nuclear of course) are what we have to rely on. The environmental issues are secondary. As long as the U.S. Congress holds up the production from new and exiting fields, then prices will remain high, and the US Congress remains "OPEC's staunchest ally."

did you read this?

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.


And then, listen to T-Boone Pickens explain how we need to get off oil and use wind for electric power and free up natural gas for transportation purposes. It's a great idea. Listen to the interview with him.

[happy]

Washington - Three decades ago, during an earlier energy crisis, Ronald Reagan strode into an Atlanta hotel for a political meeting. As he approached the auditorium, someone asked:

"Governor Reagan, as a conservative, don't you think the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit imposed by the government to save gas is a violation of our freedom?"

In his amiable manner, Reagan chuckled quietly and, as I recall, he replied something like this:

"Well, that could be. But, speaking just personally, I think it's not a bad thing if we all slow down just a bit and enjoy the scenery a little more."

We could all use that kind of common sense today as gas rises past $4.

Many ideas are being put forth to ameliorate an energy-price crisis that threatens job security and economic growth in the United States.

Famous oilman T. Boone Pickens wants to build huge turbines all over the Midwest to harness wind energy.

Many members of Congress want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where – at today's prices – there is probably $1 trillion worth of oil waiting to be pumped.

In California, moves are afoot to make the state the renewable energy capital of the nation.

But – and there always seems to be a "but" – all of those ideas take time. Five years to build substantial wind farms. Ten years to tap Arctic oil.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has published predictions that a barrel of oil could reach $200 as soon as the end of this year. If that happens, gasoline would hit $6 a gallon.

Woe is us.

Or maybe not.

Instead, the time may be ripe for individual citizen action – like the Minutemen of 1775. After all, isn't that how we got this great country started 233 years ago?

There are two steps we can take right away that could have greater impact than oil from the Arctic. They are so simple and straightforward that they are seldom mentioned. But Americans took these steps during World War II, and they worked.

First, drive slower.

Second, drive less.

The savings of gasoline from these two steps would be phenomenal. (More on that in a moment.)

During World War II, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt mandated a nationwide 35 m.p.h. speed limit. At that time, 35 m.p.h. was the most efficient speed for autos. Even more important, it helped preserve automobile tires, which was crucial because Japan had cut off American access to natural rubber from Southeast Asia.

Today, 35 m.p.h. is no longer the best speed for autos with their sleek designs and advanced transmissions. Newer vehicles generally get the highest gas mileage somewhere between 45 and 55 m.p.h., says David L. Greene of the National Transportation Research Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Knoxville, Tenn.

The main force reducing mileage is air drag, says Dr. Greene. The faster you go, the greater the drag. Drag forces increase exponentially, so doubling your speed from 40 to 80 increases drag fourfold.

It makes a huge difference, for at 80 m.p.h. your car pushes against wind with the force of a hurricane.

Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:

•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon

•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon

•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon

On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.

Ideally, if we all bought 45 m.p.g. Toyota Prius hybrids, US gasoline use would drop in half, from 9.3 million barrels per day, to under 5 million barrels a day. Of course, that won't happen.

So a practical and immediate response would be not only to drive slower, but also drive less. Government made that happen in World War II by limiting most drivers to four gallons of gas per week.

That's unlikely now. But consider this: If everyone could reduce their driving by just 10 percent, the savings would total nearly 1 million barrels of gasoline every day.

How much is that? Well, it amounts to about half our daily oil imports from Saudi Arabia. It also would be equal to the highest expected production of oil if we drill in ANWR. And we can do it today.

Mr. Pickens notes that America will spend $10 trillion in the next 10 years on imported oil. US wealth is draining fast overseas.

But as individuals, we can turn this around. Today. Don't wait for Barack Obama, or John McCain, or some whiz kid in Silicon Valley to solve this problem. None of them can do it quick enough.

It's up to us. Save gas, and win this fight.

• John Dillin is a former managing editor of the Christian Science Monitor.

[happy]

Washington - Three decades ago, during an earlier energy crisis, Ronald Reagan strode into an Atlanta hotel for a political meeting. As he approached the auditorium, someone asked:

"Governor Reagan, as a conservative, don't you think the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit imposed by the government to save gas is a violation of our freedom?"

In his amiable manner, Reagan chuckled quietly and, as I recall, he replied something like this:

"Well, that could be. But, speaking just personally, I think it's not a bad thing if we all slow down just a bit and enjoy the scenery a little more."

We could all use that kind of common sense today as gas rises past $4.

Many ideas are being put forth to ameliorate an energy-price crisis that threatens job security and economic growth in the United States.

Famous oilman T. Boone Pickens wants to build huge turbines all over the Midwest to harness wind energy.

Many members of Congress want to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) where – at today's prices – there is probably $1 trillion worth of oil waiting to be pumped.

In California, moves are afoot to make the state the renewable energy capital of the nation.

But – and there always seems to be a "but" – all of those ideas take time. Five years to build substantial wind farms. Ten years to tap Arctic oil.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has published predictions that a barrel of oil could reach $200 as soon as the end of this year. If that happens, gasoline would hit $6 a gallon.

Woe is us.

Or maybe not.

Instead, the time may be ripe for individual citizen action – like the Minutemen of 1775. After all, isn't that how we got this great country started 233 years ago?

There are two steps we can take right away that could have greater impact than oil from the Arctic. They are so simple and straightforward that they are seldom mentioned. But Americans took these steps during World War II, and they worked.

First, drive slower.

Second, drive less.

The savings of gasoline from these two steps would be phenomenal. (More on that in a moment.)

During World War II, Congress and President Franklin Roosevelt mandated a nationwide 35 m.p.h. speed limit. At that time, 35 m.p.h. was the most efficient speed for autos. Even more important, it helped preserve automobile tires, which was crucial because Japan had cut off American access to natural rubber from Southeast Asia.

Today, 35 m.p.h. is no longer the best speed for autos with their sleek designs and advanced transmissions. Newer vehicles generally get the highest gas mileage somewhere between 45 and 55 m.p.h., says David L. Greene of the National Transportation Research Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Knoxville, Tenn.

The main force reducing mileage is air drag, says Dr. Greene. The faster you go, the greater the drag. Drag forces increase exponentially, so doubling your speed from 40 to 80 increases drag fourfold.

It makes a huge difference, for at 80 m.p.h. your car pushes against wind with the force of a hurricane.

Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:

•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon

•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon

•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon

On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.

Ideally, if we all bought 45 m.p.g. Toyota Prius hybrids, US gasoline use would drop in half, from 9.3 million barrels per day, to under 5 million barrels a day. Of course, that won't happen.

So a practical and immediate response would be not only to drive slower, but also drive less. Government made that happen in World War II by limiting most drivers to four gallons of gas per week.

That's unlikely now. But consider this: If everyone could reduce their driving by just 10 percent, the savings would total nearly 1 million barrels of gasoline every day.

How much is that? Well, it amounts to about half our daily oil imports from Saudi Arabia. It also would be equal to the highest expected production of oil if we drill in ANWR. And we can do it today.

Mr. Pickens notes that America will spend $10 trillion in the next 10 years on imported oil. US wealth is draining fast overseas.

But as individuals, we can turn this around. Today. Don't wait for Barack Obama, or John McCain, or some whiz kid in Silicon Valley to solve this problem. None of them can do it quick enough.

It's up to us. Save gas, and win this fight.

• John Dillin is a former managing editor of the Christian Science Monitor.

I do both. I cruise control at 65mph and make a list of things to do and try to organize and get things done in one day rather than running small errands every day. I'm filling my 2006 Civic Si once a week at ~$50. All the time I've saved has let me enjoy reading and spending more quality time doing absolutely nothing - my favorite past time :] I checked out "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" by Lawrence Wright on the way home from work today.

Review from Amazon:

Wright, a New Yorker writer, brings exhaustive research and delightful prose to one of the best books yet on the history of terrorism. He begins with the observation that, despite an impressive record of terror and assassination, post–WWarII, Islamic militants failed to establish theocracies in any Arab country. Many helped Afghanistan resist the Russian invasion of 1979 before their unemployed warriors stepped up efforts at home. Al-Qaeda, formed in Afghanistan in 1988 and led by Osama bin Laden, pursued a different agenda, blaming America for Islam's problems. Less wealthy than believed, bin Laden's talents lay in organization and PR, Wright asserts. Ten years later, bin Laden blew up U.S. embassies in Africa and the destroyer Cole, opening the floodgates of money and recruits. Wright's step-by-step description of these attacks reveals that planning terror is a sloppy business, leaving a trail of clues that, in the case of 9/11, raised many suspicions among individuals in the FBI, CIA and NSA. Wright shows that 9/11 could have been prevented if those agencies had worked together. As a fugitive, bin Ladin's days as a terror mastermind may be past, but his success has spawned swarms of imitators. This is an important, gripping and profoundly disheartening book.

[happy]

I don't know who mentioned nuclear as an alternative source of energy, but I stumbled upon a new UN report:

"...nuclear power – the solution increasingly favoured by governments, which are planning to add another 350 reactors to the 438 already operating around the world – will not do the job. "For nuclear energy to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, about 2,000 nuclear power plants would have to be built, at $5-15bn per plant, over 15 years – and possibly an additional 8,000 plants beyond that to 2050."

The report says that there is not enough uranium in the world to fuel all those reactors, that another Chernobyl-type accident could halt the expansion in its tracks, and that the rapid spread of the atom around the world increases the chances of nuclear proliferation and terrorism."

This is from Sunday's Independent

We've seen the future ... and we may not be doomed:

UN report finds life is getting better for people worldwide – but that governments are failing to grasp the opportunities offered at 'a unique time'.

Cool notes from the article:

Computer power

25 years until a computer's capacity equals the power of the human brain. After another 25 years, everyone will be able to access processing power greater than that of all the brains on Earth combined.

The great melt

5 years before the Arctic could be ice-free in summer. Sea-ice last year shrank to 22 per cent below the previous record low, a level that had not been expected to be reached until 2030-50, opening up the Northwest Passage.

Fossil fuel

850 coal-fired power stations are planned to go into operation across the US, China and India over the next four years. Each station would operate for about 20 years, greatly accelerating global warming.

Solar energy

25% of Europe's electricity could come from solar-powered stations in North Africa by 2050. African leaders and aid organisations are to invest $10bn (£5bn) a year in renewable energy over the next five years.

I plan on majoring in International Relations and working for the United Nations after I graduate ... if anyone wants to read about an amazing human being please read Samantha Power's book on Sergio Viera De Mello "Chasing the Flame". I think Hollywood/HBO is going to make a film about him as well as a documentary - he was the UN ambassador to Iraq and was killed in a suicide bombing. he was known as the "secretary general in waiting".

Edited by happy, 15 July 2008 - 06:32 AM.

[happy]

NYTimes
July 15, 2008
Drilling’s Lure

President Bush’s decision on Monday to lift the moratorium on offshore oil drilling first imposed by his father 18 years ago is designed to ratchet up the pressure on Congress to do likewise. Congress should resist. Offshore drilling will not bring short-term relief from $4-a-gallon gasoline, nor can it play much more than a marginal role in any long-term strategy for energy independence. The oil companies already have access to substantial unexplored resources.

At issue are about 19 billion barrels that, the Interior Department says, lie in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Until Monday, these waters had been protected by two parallel moratoriums.

One was an executive prohibition on offshore drilling in the Lower 48 states, imposed by the first President Bush in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez disaster. This moratorium was later extended by President Bill Clinton, who added protections for Alaska’s Bristol Bay, a rich fishing ground. Mr. Bush lifted the Bristol Bay protections last year and has now eliminated the rest.

Nothing can happen in these waters, however, unless Congress chooses not to extend its moratorium, first enacted in 1981. Under law, the moratorium must be renewed every year in the annual spending bill for the Interior Department. That bill is still in the committee stage in both houses of Congress. And while the environmental community (and anti-drilling governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger) are confident that a Democratic-controlled Congress will renew the prohibitions, nothing is certain in this new era of $4-a-gallon gasoline.

Congress should not give into the pressures of a restless public and a campaign by sacrificing long-term environmental protections for short-term political gain.

[mike250]

points taken on the wind power issue. I disagree and still believe offshore drilling can help. Advance we will, thats just the free market at work. However the research is going to take some time and during this time these three sources (and nuclear of course) are what we have to rely on. The environmental issues are secondary. As long as the U.S. Congress holds up the production from new and exiting fields, then prices will remain high, and the US Congress remains "OPEC's staunchest ally."

did you read this?

A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.

The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.

Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.


And then, listen to T-Boone Pickens explain how we need to get off oil and use wind for electric power and free up natural gas for transportation purposes. It's a great idea. Listen to the interview with him.

yes I did:


"...almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews."

If these areas are under land-use and environmental reviews, what basis is there for claiming that they "will" be available?


"Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim."

We can ignore the Wilderness Society's claims here--they're directly opposed to drilling and exploration in any case.


"roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy."

Because a large part of the leased land doesn't hold oil? Or perhaps it's in a form that's uneconomic to extract? Or both?

If I lease a million acres of land and find enough oil to pump from just one well, does that qualify the remaining 999,900 acres or so of land as "not being used to produce energy"?


"That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska."

Potentially means nothing--almost the whole of Australia is "potentially" productive, but the costs and difficulties of extracting oil and gas may well turn out to be prohibitive.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 11:34 AM.

[mike250]

I don't know who mentioned nuclear as an alternative source of energy, but I stumbled upon a new UN report:

"...nuclear power – the solution increasingly favoured by governments, which are planning to add another 350 reactors to the 438 already operating around the world – will not do the job. "For nuclear energy to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, about 2,000 nuclear power plants would have to be built, at $5-15bn per plant, over 15 years – and possibly an additional 8,000 plants beyond that to 2050."

The report says that there is not enough uranium in the world to fuel all those reactors, that another Chernobyl-type accident could halt the expansion in its tracks, and that the rapid spread of the atom around the world increases the chances of nuclear proliferation and terrorism."

This is from Sunday's Independent

We've seen the future ... and we may not be doomed:

UN report finds life is getting better for people worldwide – but that governments are failing to grasp the opportunities offered at 'a unique time'.

Cool notes from the article:

Computer power

25 years until a computer's capacity equals the power of the human brain. After another 25 years, everyone will be able to access processing power greater than that of all the brains on Earth combined.

The great melt

5 years before the Arctic could be ice-free in summer. Sea-ice last year shrank to 22 per cent below the previous record low, a level that had not been expected to be reached until 2030-50, opening up the Northwest Passage.

Fossil fuel

850 coal-fired power stations are planned to go into operation across the US, China and India over the next four years. Each station would operate for about 20 years, greatly accelerating global warming.

Solar energy

25% of Europe's electricity could come from solar-powered stations in North Africa by 2050. African leaders and aid organisations are to invest $10bn (£5bn) a year in renewable energy over the next five years.

I plan on majoring in International Relations and working for the United Nations after I graduate ... if anyone wants to read about an amazing human being please read Samantha Power's book on Sergio Viera De Mello "Chasing the Flame". I think Hollywood/HBO is going to make a film about him as well as a documentary - he was the UN ambassador to Iraq and was killed in a suicide bombing. he was known as the "secretary general in waiting".

Nuclear power is a true and tried technology. The idea that it will fuel more terrorism and cause yet another Chernobyl-type accident-- evidently some people still live in that era-- is very shallow and feeds into the social stigma surrounding this type of alternative power. The UN is just another government bureaucracy and has lost its credibility a long time ago.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 12:06 PM.

[missminni]

Nuclear power is a true and tried technology. The idea that it will fuel more terrorism and cause yet another Chernobyl-type accident-- evidently some people still live in that era-- is very shallow and feeds into the social stigma surrounding this type of alternative power. The UN is just another government bureaucracy and has lost its credibility a long time ago.

I think there is a big downside to nuclear, but at this point in time I think the more diversified we are when it comes to energy options, the better off we will be. Wind is a very exciting option and freeing up natural gas for transportation would be a no brainer. I think T-Boone's plan is very doable. I also think it is more than likely going to be private enterprise that develops these options and probably that's the only way it will ever get done.
Off shore drilling is NOT an option to be considered. We have to get out of the oil rut and this energy crisis is a blessing in disguise.
The price of oil is never coming down. NEVER. Too many greedy people,( Bush's "Have Mores") are getting filthy rich from it,
the President included. More drilling is just more for them, less for humanity.
It is the reason for the war in Iraq and 60 years of ongoing hostilities in the middle east. Interestingly, that's just about as long as the Bush dynasty has been controlling our foreign policy, a policy that revolves around oil.
YES, drive slower, drive less and diversify energy options and say NO to anything Bush. Then we can progress.
I think the impeachment thread has morphed into the energy crisis....I don't know how to split a thread, but if anybody does, maybe we should.

Edited by missminni, 15 July 2008 - 12:34 PM.

[mike250]

Nuclear power is a true and tried technology. The idea that it will fuel more terrorism and cause yet another Chernobyl-type accident-- evidently some people still live in that era-- is very shallow and feeds into the social stigma surrounding this type of alternative power. The UN is just another government bureaucracy and has lost its credibility a long time ago.

I think there is a big downside to nuclear, but at this point in time I think the more diversified we are when it comes to energy options, the better off we will be. Wind is a very exciting option and freeing up natural gas for transportation would be a no brainer. I think T-Boone's plan is very doable. I also think it is more than likely going to be private enterprise that develops these options and probably that's the only way it will ever get done.
Off shore drilling is NOT an option to be considered. We have to get out of the oil rut and this energy crisis is a blessing in disguise.
The price of oil is never coming down. NEVER. Too many greedy people,( Bush's "Have Mores") are getting filthy rich from it,
the President included. More drilling is just more for them, less for humanity.
It is the reason for the war in Iraq and 60 years of ongoing hostilities in the middle east. Interestingly, that's just about as long as the Bush dynasty has been controlling our foreign policy, a policy that revolves around oil.
YES, drive slower, drive less and diversify energy options and say NO to anything Bush. Then we can progress.
Meanwhile make sure you don't have anymore than $100,000 in any one bank.

There might be issues with nuclear as you say but at this point of time it is necessary and part of our future. The social stigma thats being force fed has to stop and people need to use their brains a bit more. The invasion of Iraq wasn't just about oil friend and people in the middle east don't hate you because of oil. We have plenty of it here and it is cheap. I maintain that offshore drilling could certainly be explored further. The only legitimate argument against it seems to be on the environmental side and that is a secondary issue as far as I'm concerned. Whats wrong with having more than $100,000 in any one bank?

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 12:44 PM.

[missminni]

There might be issues with nuclear as you say but at this point of time it is necessary and part of our future. certainly until more progress is made in other energy sources. The invasion of Iraq wasn't just about oil friend and people in the middle east don't hate you because of oil. We have plenty of it there and it is cheap. Whats wrong with having more than $100,000 in any one bank?

That's funny you caught that. I edited it out because I thought the thread was going off in too many
different directions....off topic.
IndyMac went belly-up and people didn't realize that the FDIC only covers 100,000 per bank customer....not per account.
People have lost their life savings....and this is just the beginning. They are expecting at leat 200 banks across the country to fold.

[mike250]

There might be issues with nuclear as you say but at this point of time it is necessary and part of our future. certainly until more progress is made in other energy sources. The invasion of Iraq wasn't just about oil friend and people in the middle east don't hate you because of oil. We have plenty of it there and it is cheap. Whats wrong with having more than $100,000 in any one bank?

That's funny you caught that. I edited it out because I thought the thread was going off in too many
different directions....off topic.
IndyMac went belly-up and people didn't realize that the FDIC only covers 100,000 per bank customer....not per account.
People have lost their life savings....and this is just the beginning. They are expecting at leat 200 banks across the country to fold.

luckily I don't reside there anymore and I don't pay taxes anymore I earn an income free of tax and this has helped wonders, esp. for my savings.

anyhow the impeachment issue is too late bro. it should have been done a long time ago when everybody was just watching and nodding their heads.

More failed promises.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 01:13 PM.

[missminni]

luckily I don't reside there anymore and I don't pay taxes anymore I earn an income free of tax and this has helped wonders, esp. for my savings.

anyhow the impeachment issue is too late bro. it should have been done a long time ago when everybody was just watching and nodding their heads.

More failed promises.

Are you a US citizen? Do you vote in US elections?
Now I understand why your opinions are so defeatist and negative and out of synch with reality here.
Why do you keep writing like you live here when you don't. Where do you live?
BTW. they don't hate us in the middle east because we buy their oil. They hate us because we occupy their land.
And the invasion of Iraq was not only about oil, it was about the money to be made by companies like Haliburton, Blackwater
and others closely connected to the administration and to expand our military presence in the Middle east in order to protect
their oil interests and those of the Saudis. It was the
personal agenda of President Bush and the Have Mores who never have enough, the greedy bastards. And as far as
being too late....it's never too late for justice.

[mike250]

luckily I don't reside there anymore and I don't pay taxes anymore I earn an income free of tax and this has helped wonders, esp. for my savings.

anyhow the impeachment issue is too late bro. it should have been done a long time ago when everybody was just watching and nodding their heads.

More failed promises.

Are you a US citizen? Do you vote in US elections?
Now I understand why your opinions are so defeatist and negative and out of synch with reality here.
Why do you keep writing like you live here when you don't. Where do you live?
BTW. they don't hate us in the middle east because we buy their oil. They hate us because we occupy their land.
And the invasion of Iraq was not only about oil, it was about the money to be made by companies like Haliburton, Blackwater
and others closely connected to the administration and to expand our military presence in the Middle east in order to protect
their oil interests and those of the Saudis. It was the
personal agenda of President Bush and the Have Mores who never have enough, the greedy bastards. And as far as
being too late....it's never too late for justice.

I have dual citizenship. I'm not going to vote. I've become disillusioned with the political system as it is and in either case its a lose lose situation. Yes I used to live here but just a few months ago I got some very good job offers overseas and considering the less draconian laws over there it was a move I will not regret--very good business environment and you don't have to worry about the government sticking their dirty hands inside your cookie Jar. Then I will donate some money to Aubrey.

the reasons for the Iraqi Invasion were pretty obvious since Day 1 and the Bush-Saudi Dynasty goes a long way back. You're just repeating what I already know. As for Justice, everybody watched and nodded their heads. Too little too late to talk about impeachment--especially after the damage that has been done-- and act like they care.

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 02:13 PM.

[missminni]

I have dual citizenship. I'm not going to vote. I've become disillusioned with the political system as it is and in either case its a lose lose situation. Yes I used to live here but just a few months ago I got some very good job offers overseas and considering the less draconian laws over there it was a move I will not regret--very good business environment and you don't have to worry about the government sticking their dirty hands inside your cookie Jar. Then I will donate some money to Aubrey.

the reasons for the Iraqi Invasion were pretty obvious since Day 1 and the Bush-Saudi Dynasty goes a long way back. You're just repeating what I already know. As for Justice, everybody watched and nodded their heads. Too little too late to talk about impeachment--especially after the damage that has been done-- and act like they care.

If you don't vote and you don't pay taxes you don't count! Literally and figuratively. Puhleeeeze.
What third world country are you living high off the hog in?
something tells me it's in southeast asia...

[mike250]

I have dual citizenship. I'm not going to vote. I've become disillusioned with the political system as it is and in either case its a lose lose situation. Yes I used to live here but just a few months ago I got some very good job offers overseas and considering the less draconian laws over there it was a move I will not regret--very good business environment and you don't have to worry about the government sticking their dirty hands inside your cookie Jar. Then I will donate some money to Aubrey.

the reasons for the Iraqi Invasion were pretty obvious since Day 1 and the Bush-Saudi Dynasty goes a long way back. You're just repeating what I already know. As for Justice, everybody watched and nodded their heads. Too little too late to talk about impeachment--especially after the damage that has been done-- and act like they care.

If you don't vote and you don't pay taxes you don't count! Literally and figuratively. Puhleeeeze.
What third world country are you living high off the hog in?
something tells me it's in southeast asia...

third world country LOL,

its Dubai friend (future Dubiotech to be more specific). Have you ever been there before? or do you like to look down on people like Mr Bush does?

Edited by mike250, 15 July 2008 - 02:47 PM.

[happy]

Living in Dubai is not wonderful and glamorous, as many would have you believe. Forget about what you’ve read, seen, and heard; those shiny buildings and manmade islands are all just smoke and mirrors. There are so many things wrong with this place that I have decided to compile a list, a must read if you are considering a potential move to Dubai.

* 1. There is no standard address system making mail-to-the door delivery impossible. In fact, it makes anything nearly impossible. The taxi driver, here for only two days, and having learned English from old Beatles albums has no clue where your house is. He won’t tell you that of course, he’ll just keep calling and saying, “Okay, okay. Yeah, yeah.” When you purchase something that requires delivery they do not have an address line, but a box where you are expected to draw a map. Not able to draw a map? Explain like this: I live on the street after the airport road, but before the roundabout. Go past the mosque and make a U-turn.

* 2. The government blocks all web sites that it deems “offensive” to the “religious, moral, and cultural values” of the UAE. That’s hard to swallow for a freedom loving American, but I get it. I do not understand, however, why all VOIP access and related web sites are blocked. I guess the government also takes offense to people inexpensively contacting their families back home. You’re welcome to call using the analog service provided by the government-owned telephone monopoly, but it will cost you a whole lot more. So much so, in fact, your frequency of calls will be greatly diminished if you can afford them at all. The government says VOIP is blocked for security reasons, yet even the residents of communist China and North Korea have access to these inexpensive calls.

* 3. It is really hot outside. Not Florida in July hot; Hot as if you were locked in a car in Florida in July with sufficient humidity to make it feel as though you are drowning. Hot as in 120 degrees with nearly 100% humidity. Do not look to the wind for relief. This is the equivalent of pointing a hairdryer on full blast directly at your face. Pour fine moon dust-like sand over your head as you do this and you get the picture.

* 4. There are too few trees, plants, and grass – or living things aside from us crazy humans, for that matter. Ever see a bird pant? I have. In my opinion, human beings were not meant to live in such a place. If we were, there would be sufficient water and shade. The only greenery around are the roadside gardens planted by the government, who waters the hell out of them in the middle of the day. Thanks a lot! Didn’t you say we should cut down on our water consumption because you are unable to keep up with the demand? I have an idea: let’s all move someplace where it’s not 120 degrees outside.

* 5. This country prides itself so much on its glitz and glamour that it put a picture of its 7-star hotel on the license plate. Yet, the public toilets in the king-of-bling Gold Souk district are holes in the ground with no toilet paper or soap. Hoses to rinse your nether regions, however, are provided. This results in a mass of water on the floor that you must stand in to pee. Try squatting without touching anything and keeping your pants from touching anything either. Oh yeah. It’s 120 degrees in there too.

* 6. This country encourages businesses to hire people from other poor countries to come here and work. They have them sign contracts that are a decade long and then take their passports. Even though taking passports is supposedly illegal, the government knows it happens and does nothing to enforce the law. These poor people are promised a certain pay, but the companies neglect to tell them they will be deducting their cost of living from their paychecks, leaving them virtually penniless – that is, if they choose to pay them. Companies hold back paychecks for months at a time. When the workers strike as a result, they are jailed. Protesting is illegal, you see (apparently this law IS enforced).

These people will never make enough to buy a ticket home and even if they do, they do not have their passports. They live crammed in portables with tons of others, in highly unsanitary conditions. The kicker: they are building hotels that cost more to stay in for one night than they will make in an entire year. Things are so bad that a number of laborers are willing to throw themselves in front of cars because their death would bring their family affluence in the form of diya, blood money paid to the victim’s family as mandated by the government.

* 7. Things are not cheaper here. I’m sick of people saying that. I read the letters to the editor page of the paper and people say to those who complain about the cost of living rising here, “Well, it’s cheaper than your home country or you wouldn’t be here.” The only thing cheaper here is labor. Yes, you can have a maid – but a bag of washed lettuce will cost you almost $10.

* 8. There are traffic cameras everywhere. I consider this cheating. Where are the damn cops? I drove around this city for weeks before I ever even saw a cop. Trust me, they need traffic cops here. People drive like idiots. It’s perfectly okay to turn left from the far right lane, but speeding even just a couple of kilometers over will get you fined. These cameras are placed strategically as you come down hills, or just as the speed limit changes. Before you know it…BAM! Fined. Forget to pay the bill and your car will be impounded..

* 9. The clothing some of these women wear makes no sense to me. I understand that as part of your religion you are required to dress in a particular way, but a black robe over your jeans and turtleneck and cover your head when it is 120 degrees outside? In the gym some women wear five layers of clothing…sweatpants and t-shits over sweaters with headscarves. Yet the men’s clothing makes absolute sense: white, airy, and nothing underneath but their skivvies.

* 10. People stare at you. I am sick of being stared at. I’m stared at by men who have never seen a fair-skinned blue-eyed woman before, or who have and think we are all prostitutes so it’s okay to stare. They stare at me when I am fully covered or with my husband, and even follow me around. It’s beyond creepy and has brought me to tears on more than one occasion. The staring is not limited to men, either. I’m stared at angrily by female prostitutes who think I am running in on their territory by having a few drinks with my husband at the bar.

* 11. Prostitutes? Oh hell yes, there are prostitutes. Tons of them. So, let me get this straight, I can’t look at a naked picture of a person on the Internet in the privacy of my home, but it is okay to go out in public and buy a few for the night?

* 12. Alcohol can only be sold in hotels and a handful of private clubs. A person must own a liquor license to consume in the privacy of their own home. To obtain a liquor license you must get signed approval from your boss, prove a certain level of salary that determines how much you are allowed to buy, and then submit several mug shots (aka passport photos) for approval. Pay the fee and the additional 30% tax on every purchase and you may drink at home. Then again, you can just pick up a few bottles in the airport duty free on your way in to the country, but two is the max. Why not just drive out to Ajman where it’s a free-for-all and load up the SUV? It’s easy enough, but crossing the Emirates with alcohol is illegal – particularly in the dry emirate of Sharjah, which just happens to lie between Dubai and Ajman. Go figure.

* 13. Not only do you have to get your boss’s approval to obtain a liquor license, but you must also get the company’s approval to rent property, have a telephone, or get satellite TV.

* 14. Back to the craziness on the roads: If I see one more kid standing up and waving to me out the back window while flying down the road at 160 kph…whatever happened to seatbelts?

* 15. When is the weekend again? Let me get this straight: the weekend used to be Thursday and Friday, but no one took off all of Thursday, just a half day really. Now the government says Friday and Saturday are the weekend, but some people only take off Friday, others still take a half day on Thursday, but some might just take a half day on Saturday instead. Anyway you slice it, Sundays are workdays and little business can be accomplished Thursday through Saturday.

* 16. There are few satellite television operators:. The movie channels play movies that are old and outdated. Many of them went straight to video back in the States. Every sitcom that failed in the US has been purchased and is played here. Old episodes of Knight Rider are advertised like it is the coolest thing since sliced bread. The TV commercials are repeated so often that I am determined NOT to buy anything I see advertised on television here just for thee principle of it. When I say repeated often, I mean every commercial break - sometimes more than once.

* 17. The roads are horribly designed. Driving ten minutes out of the way to make a U-turn is not uncommon. People are not able to give directions most of the time (remember reason #1), and the maps are little help because most have few road names on them, if any. Where is interchange four? You just have to hope you got on the freeway in the right place and start counting because they are not numbered. Miss it and you’ll likely end up on the other side of town before you are able to turn around and go back.

* 18. Taxi drivers are dangerous and smell. Taxi drivers work very hard here to earn a living because travel by taxi is still relatively inexpensive, even though the cost of living is not (see reason #7). Because of this you may have a driver who has had little sleep or the opportunity to shower for several days. Many of these drivers have just as much difficulty finding their way around as you do, but add to this a third-world country driving style and extreme exhaustion and, well, remember to buckle up for safety.

* 19. Speeding is an Emirati sport and Emirates Road is just an extension of the Dubai Autodrome. I know I keep mentioning the roads, but really, much of this city’s issues are encompassed by the erratic and irrational behavior displayed on its streets. Visions of flashing lights on even flashier, limo-tinted SUVs haunt me as I merge on to the highway. Local nationals are somehow able to get the sun-protecting dark window tint denied to us lowly expats and use it to hide their faces as they tailgate you incessantly at unbelievably high speeds, their lights flickering on and off and horn blaring repeatedly. It doesn’t matter that you can’t get over, or if doing so would be particularly dangerous, they will run you off the road to get in front of you. Don’t even think about giving someone the finger; the offense could land you in jail. Tailgating is, unbelievably, legal.

* 20. Dubai is far from environmentally friendly. Ever wonder how much damage those manmade islands are doing to the delicate ocean ecosystem? Coral reefs, sea grasses, and oyster beds that were once part of protected marine lands lie choked under a barrage of dredged up sea sand. Consider the waste that occurs from erecting buildings on top of these sand monsters and from the people that occupy them coupled with the lack of an effective recycling program and you have an environmental disaster on your hands. Add to this more gas guzzling SUVs than fuel-efficient cars on the road and the need for 24-hour powerful air-conditioning and its evident that the environment is not high on the priority list of the UAE.

So while I’m sure there are benefits to living in Dubai, tax breaks, multi-cultural environments, and beautiful buildings aside, reconsider your plans to move here if any of the above mentioned reasons strikes a chord within you. Dubai is a city caught in an identity crisis. Struggling somewhere between its desire to be a playground for the rich and its adherence to traditional Islamic roots, rests a city that lacks sufficient infrastructure to support its delusions of grandeur. Visit if you must, but leave quickly before you are sucked into its calamitous void.

By Tia O’Neill

[happy]

Halliburton plans move to Dubai
Halliburton's offices in Houston, Texas
Critics said Halliburton was favoured by the Bush administration
Halliburton, the oil services company formerly headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, is moving its headquarters from Texas to Dubai.

The company said it hoped the move to the United Arab Emirates would help it expand its business in the Middle East.

Halliburton won valuable contracts in Iraq following the US-led invasion of 2003, some of which were awarded without competitive bidding.

The company also has extensive operations in Saudi Arabia.

The oil giant will keep an office in Houston but the posts of chairman, president and chief executive will be based in Dubai.

Chief Executive Dave Lesar, speaking at a conference in Bahrain, confirmed that he would be relocating.

"As the CEO, I'm responsible for the global business of Halliburton in both hemispheres and I will continue to spend quite a bit of time in an airplane as I remain attentive to our customers, shareholders and employees around the world," he said.

"Yes, I will spend the majority of my time in Dubai."

In 2006, Halliburton made profits of $2.3bn on revenues of $22.6bn. Last month it announced a 40% decline in fourth-quarter profit.

No wonder you're so pro-drilling

[missminni]

I have dual citizenship. I'm not going to vote. I've become disillusioned with the political system as it is and in either case its a lose lose situation. Yes I used to live here but just a few months ago I got some very good job offers overseas and considering the less draconian laws over there it was a move I will not regret--very good business environment and you don't have to worry about the government sticking their dirty hands inside your cookie Jar. Then I will donate some money to Aubrey.

the reasons for the Iraqi Invasion were pretty obvious since Day 1 and the Bush-Saudi Dynasty goes a long way back. You're just repeating what I already know. As for Justice, everybody watched and nodded their heads. Too little too late to talk about impeachment--especially after the damage that has been done-- and act like they care.

If you don't vote and you don't pay taxes you don't count! Literally and figuratively. Puhleeeeze.
What third world country are you living high off the hog in?
something tells me it's in southeast asia...

third world country LOL,

its Dubai friend (future Dubiotech to be more specific). Have you ever been there before? or do you like to look down on people like Mr Bush does?

Dubai! Oh my God, you are so busted. that isn't even third world. At least in third world countries you have native culture and art. What the hell does Dubai
have except gross ostentatious ugliness....bad taste run rampant....I have seen the pictures...and the most barbaric of social and legal systems.
It's ignorance times a million. And what do you mean about Bush looking down on people...he loves freakin Dubai. That where he and his
partners set up shop....Isn't Haliburton there?
I don't look down on anybody....but when the most decadent hypocritical country in the world is your choice for home I have to
question your value system and most definitely your opinion. You got to be pretty damn desperate to live in Dubai.

[inawe]

Halliburton is making billions out US taxpayers. It's relocating its headquarters to Dubai. Executives and other employees move to Dubai, claim dual nationality and don't pay US taxes. Perfect!

[missminni]

Halliburton is making billions out US taxpayers. It's relocating its headquarters to Dubai. Executives and other employees move to Dubai, claim dual nationality and don't pay US taxes. Perfect!

What some people will do for money just blows my mind.
I know people who have worked there and their reports are always nightmarish....like the article
posted by a Tia McNeil. Whenever I hear somebody chooses to live there because of the money, I know there is nothing
they won't do for a buck. Even sell their souls, because living in Dubai is just that. Rich people's playground...poor peoples
hell. It is the very epitome of decadence. Mike250, you are soooooo busted now.

[Brainbox]

This thread is in need of a vacation.