Discussion: Alternative Energy

[Tron5000]

What's the difference then? That's like asking me if I'd rather buy an American television instead of a Japanese television-- but the only drawback would be that a city in the midwest will have to be bulldozed to the ground in order to make room for the new TV processing plant.

I mean... if it still costs the same, then what does it matter that we are getting 55% our oil from overseas sources?

The oil companies will still be the ones in charge there, they'll still be making record profits while our middle class teeters on the brink of economic disparity... my issue isn't where the oil comes from, it's 1) how much it costs and 2) how the oil executives are raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers.

I support oil independence, but why can't we drill for oil in MT and ND, where no one lives, and no wildlife refuges will be in danger?

Where do you get your information that oil executives are "raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers"? Oil profits are rising because the price of a barrel of oil is rising, but profit margins are not rising. The oil companies are still making the same profit margin, while profits increase. Do you understand the difference?

So you are OK with paying for oil from nations that kill our soldiers (Iran), nations that sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and nations that refer to the US as The Great Satan (Venezuela)? Right on, then.

 

[The Senator]

Where do you get your information that oil executives are "raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers"? Oil profits are rising because the price of a barrel of oil is rising, but profit margins are not rising. The oil companies are still making the same profit margin, while profits increase. Do you understand the difference?

So you are OK with paying for oil from nations that kill our soldiers (Iran), nations that sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and nations that refer to the US as The Great Satan (Venezuela)? Right on, then.

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

 

[StorminNorman]

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

I personally want drilling in Montana, South Dakota, ANWR and the Florida coast. The more oil we make, the lower the prices OPEC will set. Also if we start utilizing coal to oil, gas prices will also drop - history has shown that.

You shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich.

 

[The Senator]

I personally want drilling in Montana, South Dakota, ANWR and the Florida coast. The more oil we make, the lower the prices OPEC will set. Also if we start utilizing coal to oil, gas prices will also drop - history has shown that.

You shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich.

No, we shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich. But we shouldn't penalize the middle class for not making enough money, either. We have done nothing to lift the burden on the middle class, and we won't in the foreseeable future. This country is collapsing from the inside out. If we continue at this rate, I guarantee that we will lose our superpower status within the next twenty years... if not sooner...

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I was going to start a new thread but I think I can get the same amount of discussion on this thread.


Why are other forms of energy not more heavily viable and put into greater use? Nuclear? Solar? Wind? Electrical? Propane? Hydrogen? Hydraulic? And others?

I know that now they are being developed but how far and how hard are these technologies really being pushed and tapped into? Why are we not trying to free ourselves of such a huge dependence on oil? And even if it is not to free ourselves of the dependency on oil, why not do it because it is the logical step in our civilization?

If we are to advance as a race and species why are we not thinking what comes next? I know scientist and others are heavily at work on new technologies such as perpetual motion and other more far off alternatives for energy sources.

But what about the technologies that are here now?

Or is money really that important to the fat greedy pricks in this country that control everything?

 

[Tron5000]

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

What, the oil executive should lower his compensatory package in order to help out other people? You think an oil executive's salary is why we're paying the prices we are? That's ridiculous. 80% of the price of gas comes from the cost of a barrel of oil. Around 16% goes to the government in the form of taxes and about 4% is profits received by the oil companies. These profits are enjoyed by anyone who owns stock in the company, including many people whose retirement portfolios contain oil stock. These would be our policemen, fire fighters, teachers, postal workers, bank employees, etc. You're just looking for an individual to demonize when the factors that make up the price of oil are just too complex. The cost of a gallon of gas contains within it the cost of the barrel of oil that was refined into gasoline, various taxes, future research and exploration, speculators who purchase oil contracts on the futures market, transportation costs in delivering that oil...Yet you're upset because some individual has risen to a high level of success (likely by studying hard and working his butt off for years) in the oil company and drives a better car and owns a better home than most people.

Yes, let's shout from the rooftops our ire and disgust at these hideous "executives" and how they are ripping us off. "You rich people are making me pay more for gas! Curse you!"

Why don't we drill in ND and MT? Good question. I say drill where you can find the oil. And the majority of the US's oil and natural gas lies in ANWR and in offshore deposits.

 

[The Senator]

Why don't we drill in ND and MT? Good question. I say drill where you can find the oil. And the majority of the US's oil and natural gas lies in ANWR and in offshore deposits.

Actually, an article I posted here a while back and the story which aired on MSNBC following its publication stated that the oil in MT and ND would rival that of ANWR-- if we could get to it.

 

[Tron5000]

Actually, an article I posted here a while back and the story which aired on MSNBC following its publication stated that the oil in MT and ND would rival that of ANWR-- if we could get to it.

"f we could get to it." Guess what: we can get to the oil in ANWR and the offshore deposits. We can and we should.

 

[The Senator]

"f we could get to it." Guess what: we can get to the oil in ANWR and the offshore deposits. We can and we should.

And then destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the United States?

Nah, I think I'll pass.

 

[Tron5000]

And then destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the United States?

Nah, I think I'll pass.

Destroy what? They're talking about a few acres out of the millions contained within ANWR. How exactly would ANWR be destroyed?

And what about in the offshore deposits? What would be the negative consequences of drilling there?

I heard a gentleman on talk radio the other day responding to a claim that drilling is bad for the caribou. This gentleman (he was on Herman Cain's show, but I can't recall his name) appeared to be somewhat of an authority on US energy, and I would expect nothing less from a guest on Herman's show. He stated definitively that in areas that have been drilled, the caribou population has actually increased, by as much as fivefold in some areas. He explained that the oil pipelines produce heat, and the caribou congregate around the pipelines to stay warm when the temperature becomes very low. This has resulted in far fewer caribou dying from cold, and they have been able to reproduce and grow their populations at a staggering rate.

 

[The Senator]

Destroy what? They're talking about a few acres out of the millions contained within ANWR. How exactly would ANWR be destroyed?

You do realize that drilling even an acre of land could have significant environmental problems, right? Not to mention that pollution from the oil rigs could get into the groundwater, leaking into streams and rivers and whatever watershed exists up there in Alaska. Destroying an acre of land could destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska.

And what about in the offshore deposits? What would be the negative consequences of drilling there?

Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.

I heard a gentleman on talk radio the other day responding to a claim that drilling is bad for the caribou. This gentleman (he was on Herman Cain's show, but I can't recall his name) appeared to be somewhat of an authority on US energy, and I would expect nothing less from a guest on Herman's show. He stated definitively that in areas that have been drilled, the caribou population has actually increased, by as much as fivefold in some areas. He explained that the oil pipelines produce heat, and the caribou congregate around the pipelines to stay warm when the temperature becomes very low. This has resulted in far fewer caribou dying from cold, and they have been able to reproduce and grow their populations at a staggering rate.

I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.

 

[SuBe]

Tron, as right as you are, you are not going to convince anyone with that. They may look into it, but the Left doens't want energy independance if it has a 0.001% chance of hurting a lizard or an owl somewhere. Our Economy<Animals. That's what they think.

 

[Tron5000]

You do realize that drilling even an acre of land could have significant environmental problems, right? Not to mention that pollution from the oil rigs could get into the groundwater, leaking into streams and rivers and whatever watershed exists up there in Alaska. Destroying an acre of land could destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska.



Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.



I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.

You're worried about spills? Less than one one-thousandth of a percent of all oil drilled by the US (0.001%) has been spilled. 0 spills when derricks were destroyed during Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, so worrying about this is pointless. Not a factor.

Exactly what species' habitats are you so fond of protecting? I mean, if you don't want to "destroy" the environment and "destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska," then I presume you know what species you are so fond of protecting and are also aware of how affecting their habitats would affect Northern Alaska.

"Nature should be able to play its course." OK, so we won't build any more subdivisions, because that might drive deer from their natural habitat into a place where they may have to co-exist with humans. No more roads, because we wouldn't want to disturb the mighty woodpecker in his habitat in the forest. Let's just let nature to continue to go unimpeded.

"Without technological intervention"? So we have to stifle the use of technology because we may disturb a few creatures? OK, sure. I'll buy that.

 

[The Senator]

You're worried about spills? Less than one one-thousandth of a percent of all oil drilled by the US (0.001%) has been spilled. 0 spills when derricks were destroyed during Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, so worrying about this is pointless. Not a factor.

I didn't say spills, did I? You think you can just put a rig up without any environmental problems? You don't think that water erodes the steel beams of these platforms? You don't think that the soil interacts with the oil rigs? If the soil becomes polluted, the surrounding vegetation will become polluted. If the vegetation is polluted, wildlife is polluted. If wildlife is polluted and dies, then how can nature successfully sustain itself? It can't.

Exactly what species' habitats are you so fond of protecting? I mean, if you don't want to "destroy" the environment and "destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska," then I presume you know what species you are so fond of protecting and are also aware of how affecting their habitats would affect Northern Alaska.

I hope to preserve all of them, frankly.

"Nature should be able to play its course." OK, so we won't build any more subdivisions, because that might drive deer from their natural habitat into a place where they may have to co-exist with humans. No more roads, because we wouldn't want to disturb the mighty woodpecker in his habitat in the forest. Let's just let nature to continue to go unimpeded.

I'm not against building subdivisions or roads because most of them in are not built on land which has been zoned as a wildlife refuge. There's a difference between building on a wooded area, and on a wildlife refuge which was set aside with the intent and purpose of preserving the pristine wildernesses which inhabit it.

"Without technological intervention"? So we have to stifle the use of technology because we may disturb a few creatures? OK, sure. I'll buy that.

If the caribou are relying on the oil pipeline for heat, then that represents a problem. No longer are they providing for themselves, but they are relying on man to fulfill their needs. What if that pipeline disappears? The animals which relied on it for heat will be unable to readjust to the cold temperatures, they will be unaware of what to do in the cold... and they will die. They're losing their natural instincts here.

 

[Tron5000]

I didn't say spills, did I? You think you can just put a rig up without any environmental problems? You don't think that water erodes the steel beams of these platforms? You don't think that the soil interacts with the oil rigs? If the soil becomes polluted, the surrounding vegetation will become polluted. If the vegetation is polluted, wildlife is polluted. If wildlife is polluted and dies, then how can nature successfully sustain itself? It can't.



I hope to preserve all of them, frankly.



I'm not against building subdivisions or roads because most of them in are not built on land which has been zoned as a wildlife refuge. There's a difference between building on a wooded area, and on a wildlife refuge which was set aside with the intent and purpose of preserving the pristine wildernesses which inhabit it.



If the caribou are relying on the oil pipeline for heat, then that represents a problem. No longer are they providing for themselves, but they are relying on man to fulfill their needs. What if that pipeline disappears? The animals which relied on it for heat will be unable to readjust to the cold temperatures, they will be unaware of what to do in the cold... and they will die. They're losing their natural instincts here.

You can't name which species residing in ANWR you want to protect, so you go with "all of them"? My, how noble of you. Good luck with that.

So the fact that we have assisted the caribou population is a bad thing?

"Don't build the pipeline! You'll kill the caribou!"

"That pipeline is helping the caribou! Damn you greedy bastards!"

 

[Handsome Rob]

I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.

Do you feel the same way about agricultural farming? One of the major contributing factors to the explosion in the deer population in Mississippi has been the increased amount of land available for farming, which provides food for deer like soybeans. In fact, hunting is now a necessity in Mississippi to keep the deer population from getting too large.

 

[The Senator]

Do you feel the same way about agricultural farming? One of the major contributing factors to the explosion in the deer population in Mississippi has been the increased amount of land available for farming, which provides food for deer like soybeans. In fact, hunting is now a necessity in Mississippi to keep the deer population from getting too large.

This is why we need to think about the consequences our actions may have on the environment. If we build a pipeline and caribou use it for warmth, they are losing touch of their natural instincts by relying on man. If we plan vast fields of soybeans and deer begin to consume those, then the deer are losing touch with their natural instincts as well by relying on man for food. The overpopulation of deer in Mississippi is something those farmers should have considered, and now they have no choice but to hunt deer in order to lower the deer population in that state.

 

[DACrowe]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

I agree energy is a major concern, albeit your doomsday scenerio does not show an inkling of how OPEC works and is way extreme, but still.

However, I think for the above reasons, as well as curbing global warming and climate change, alternative fuels must be considered. I'm talking giving tax incentives to car manufacturers in this country who make their cars more fuel eff. and use alternatives to gasoline and removing tariffs on imports that do the same, while raising tariffs and increasing taxes on those who don't. This will cause car companies to raise the price of cars that are gas guzzlers or do not seek other solutions and thus decreasing their demand. We also need to begin to invest in wind technology when geographically applicable (it's sad the most elaborate wind researcher is located in Ohio, yet all their research plants are in Germany, because that government gave them tax subsidies we save only for oil companies here) and solar power. But most of all we need to start considering nuclear power as the cheapest and most reliable clean source of mass energy and take a good long look and the European systems.


Drilling for oil in the Alaska is a DISGUSTING pandering ploy by our current administration. The only good I can see it doing is creating jobs in Alaska. Otherwise, the oil would actually not be touchable for several years and when we finally can use it, there will likely be enough to run a large state for six months. Spread across the country that will last a month if we are lucky. Destroying a national park (which was preserved to avoid such travesties as this) and killing off an ecosystem for such a short-term solution (a month) is ridiculous. Not to mention that it would go on the open market and could be sold to anywhere around the world by oil companies and not just in the US. The only way to prevent that would be government legislation, and given how reluctant our lawmakers are to even slap the oil companies on the wrist, that will never happen.

It is a faulty solution and a fallacy in people's heads created by Republicans to win elections.

 

[DACrowe]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

I agree energy is a major concern, albeit your doomsday scenerio does not show an inkling of how OPEC works and is way extreme, but still.

However, I think for the above reasons, as well as curbing global warming and climate change, alternative fuels must be considered. I'm talking giving tax incentives to car manufacturers in this country who make their cars more fuel eff. and use alternatives to gasoline and removing tariffs on imports that do the same, while raising tariffs and increasing taxes on those who don't. This will cause car companies to raise the price of cars that are gas guzzlers or do not seek other solutions and thus decreasing their demand. We also need to begin to invest in wind technology when geographically applicable (it's sad the most elaborate wind researcher is located in Ohio, yet all their research plants are in Germany, because that government gave them tax subsidies we save only for oil companies here) and solar power. But most of all we need to start considering nuclear power as the cheapest and most reliable clean source of mass energy and take a good long look and the European systems.


Drilling for oil in the Alaska is a DISGUSTING pandering ploy by our current administration. The only good I can see it doing is creating jobs in Alaska. Otherwise, the oil would actually not be touchable for several years and when we finally can use it, there will likely be enough to run a large state for six months. Spread across the country that will last a month if we are lucky. Destroying a national park (which was preserved to avoid such travesties as this) and killing off an ecosystem for such a short-term solution (a month) is ridiculous. Not to mention that it would go on the open market and could be sold to anywhere around the world by oil companies and not just in the US. The only way to prevent that would be government legislation, and given how reluctant our lawmakers are to even slap the oil companies on the wrist, that will never happen.

It is a faulty solution and a fallacy in people's heads created by Republicans to win elections.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. Something else to consider is oil is an inelastic commodity. To put it simply the demand does not change for the product no matter how much (or how little) of the supply there is. Thus, oil companies, if they are prone to sell the short-term "relief" in the US (which I doubt would happen), they would have no reason to lower the price. They simply can keep it at its current price and people will still pay it, because they cannot live without the commodity. That is why if there is a tax on oil companies, it will only lead to an increase in gas prices as they will shift the difference onto the consumers of the tax, so they lose no money and it is really coming out of our pockets. Giving them more supply will not curb the demand and there is no reason to lower price, if the price is dictated at $4.00 by the inconsistencies of members of OPEC. They drill and oil companies in the US can charge what they are now from buying OPEC's oil and make a larger profit, because people will buy the product no matter what.

It will solve nothing.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I was going to start a new thread but I think I can get the same amount of discussion on this thread.


Why are other forms of energy not more heavily viable and put into greater use? Nuclear? Solar? Wind? Electrical? Propane? Hydrogen? Hydraulic? And others?

I know that now they are being developed but how far and how hard are these technologies really being pushed and tapped into? Why are we not trying to free ourselves of such a huge dependence on oil? And even if it is not to free ourselves of the dependency on oil, why not do it because it is the logical step in our civilization?

If we are to advance as a race and species why are we not thinking what comes next? I know scientist and others are heavily at work on new technologies such as perpetual motion and other more far off alternatives for energy sources.

But what about the technologies that are here now?

Or is money really that important to the fat greedy pricks in this country that control everything?

Anyone?

 

[Carcharodon]

Anyone?

Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with who's in control of our energy now. To be frank, they have us by the balls, and they hold a good portion of the patents. I personally believe that they're going to milk the earth of all the oil they possibly can, and then will only release the available technologies as the norm once that cash-cow is gone.

However, there are other considerations regarding the implementation of these technologies on a mass-scale. It would require massive changes to our infrastructure, and there is certainly an associated cost. It will take time. The question then becomes: will that cost outweigh the cost of waiting to begin these changes?

I think it's a mistake, what's happening now. That's just me.

 

[Carcharodon]

Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.

Weeeellllllllllllll....not quite. It turns out that offshore drilling isn't nearly as disastrous as many people believe. Besides, there are aspects of a marine habitat that can't be applied to terrestrial ones. Offshore drilling platforms actually create habitat in a 3-D environment (e.g., marine).

Drilling mud only has an effect on a very small area of marine habitat, and spills are exceedingly rare. In fact, more oil is naturally leaked into marine systems off the coast of California each week than the amount of oil that has been leaked/spilled by the oil platforms there since 1969.

While I'm not necessarily advocating the offshore drilling, I certainly think many concerns are a bit overstated...this is coming from a marine biologist in training.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with who's in control of our energy now. To be frank, they have us by the balls, and they hold a good portion of the patents. I personally believe that they're going to milk the earth of all the oil they possibly can, and then will only release the available technologies as the norm once that cash-cow is gone.

However, there are other considerations regarding the implementation of these technologies on a mass-scale. It would require massive changes to our infrastructure, and there is certainly an associated cost. It will take time. The question then becomes: will that cost outweigh the cost of waiting to begin these changes?

I think it's a mistake, what's happening now. That's just me.

So basically if anyone comes up with a form of technology that could be any kind of threat as the oil companies, politicians and others would look at it. They simply pay them a boat load of cash and buy the patent so the technology is buried never to be seen again? Sad

 

[Carcharodon]

So basically if anyone comes up with a form of technology that could be any kind of threat as the oil companies, politicians and others would look at it. They simply pay them a boat load of cash and buy the patent so the technology is buried never to be seen again? Sad

Well, I certainly don't pretend to know exactly how it happens, but I have little doubt that it's somethingj along those lines.