The ANWR Is Nothing But One Giant Dry Hole

Oil People are nothing but proven liars. There is always “oil down there” they tell investors. But only 10 or 20 of the holes they drill actually produce any oil, so is it any wonder that they are unprepared when they come in? Especially in the case of the Gulf Spew if they come in violently.

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/7696-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-leading-edge.html

The Peak Oil Crisis: The Leading Edge

By Tom Whipple
Wednesday, November 03 2010 01:01:22 PM

Do you remember the furor over drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge a few years back? The whole country was up in arms. At various times some 50 to 60 percent of Americans favored drilling in the area as they were told this would result in lower gas prices.

Last week the USGS lowered its estimate of the amount of oil that could be extracted from the region all the way from 10 billion barrels down to less than one billion, making drilling in the area uneconomical. By the way, the amount of crude being pumped down the Alaskan pipeline now has fallen from 2 million barrels a day (b/d) when the pipeline first opened back in the 1970’s to about 600,000 b/d in recent weeks. The trouble is that when the flow of oil falls below a quantity estimated to be 200-300,000 b/d (some say 500,000) the line will have to be closed as there will simply not be enough hot oil being sent down the pipeline to keep it from freezing in winter.

Last week an organization in California, The Post Carbon Institute, released a new book, “The Post Carbon Reader,” which draws a much broader picture of the serious issues facing mankind. With 30 authors, each specializing in some aspect of the multiple troubles we face, the scope of the book touches on nearly every aspect of our civilization that is out of balance, unsustainable, and headed for a fall. The basic proposition of the book is that the world has reached the limits of growth in terms of its population, economic activity, and the ability of the atmosphere to absorb more carbon emissions. Either the world’s peoples must transform themselves into a sustainable number living in a sustainable manner or there will be many dire consequences right up to the possibility that the human race itself could become extinct. Clearly, this is serious stuff.

As long as a problem is perceived as being decades, or even a few years away, it is not a concern.

Some hold that our sustainability problem started when we first started planting crops and domesticating animals 10,000 years ago. This thesis says if we had stuck with hunting and gathering as a race we would have been able to sustain our act indefinitely, but then we would never have had enough surplus energy to learn reading & writing, and to build cities, the Internet and space ships. Our immediate problem, however, started in earnest with the industrial revolution about 200 years ago when we first started digging up prodigious quantities of coal and feeding it into steam engines. It wasn’t long before we struck oil and the rest is history. The world’s population went from an estimated 5 or 10 million when we first started farming, to a billion when we started serious coal digging, to about 7 billion today. We also got incredibly richer in terms of material goods and could sure get around much faster.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Green Wash – The enviromental pollution that keeps giving

George Bush and his deregulationistas turned green into a bad name. From their expansion of organic products from 120 to well over 1,000 to their attempt to promote something mythologically called clean coal, the Bush administration was hell bent on destroying the environment.  Tragically he may be remembered as the man who set aside more ocean square miles as a wild life sanctuary than any other president…but that is another story…

here is a great site for it:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing

SourceWatch needs your financial support to survive and thrive. If you’ve found this information on the people, organizations, and issues shaping the public agenda helpful, please make a tax-deductible donation now.

Greenwashing

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search

This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy’s climate change project.

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.” This definition was shaped by by the group’s focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing. [1]

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash.” [1]

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to “confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to … hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet.” [2]

Contents

[hide]

The allure of greenwashing

:}

Of course Green Peace has to have their say:

http://stopgreenwash.org/

What’s this all about?

Every day, Americans are bombarded with advertising about environmentally friendly goods and services. But how many really are green, and how many are just pretending?

dddot dddot dddot

About Shell Oil they say:

At a time when the fate of this federally protected area is so vulnerable and at risk of being altered forever by oil, Greenpeace felt it necessary to shed light on the ironic fact that Shell has used the place to brand its own image as green and actually caring about the environment.

The oil company ran a full-page print advertisement in National Geographic Magazine and several other publications, which featured a color picture of a diver swimming through deep blue water featuring brightly colored fish and coral. The statement in the middle of the ad says: “What do we really need in today’s energy hungry world? More gardeners.”

More gardeners? If that’s really what we needed, we could just stop drilling for oil all together right? All we need is more gardeners.

But Shell doesn’t really mean that at all.

They know that in today’s energy hungry world, oil is the food and the company’s main priority. Even through the thickest green glasses, few are going to dispute that fact.

The rest of the text on the advertisement reads that a Shell employee and marine biologist has been working with the company to protect the area.

But how much could the oil giant really be protecting when the company also actually drills near the vulnerable sanctuary.

The advertisement and words on the page are clearly for show.

Shell does have close ties to the Flower Gardens. In fact, an executive from Shell Canada, Rebecca Nadel serves on the sanctuary’s advisory council. Also on the team for the sanctuary is James Sinclair of the now notorious Minerals Management Service. At first glance, it doesn’t exactly look like those employed to protect the sanctuary are representing the most responsible organizations.

Shell has a cozy bed in sanctuary bureaucracy.

The company however, does donate money to Flower Gardens. The Green Life reports $5,000 of direct funding each year. However, the site also acknowledges that it costs nearly six figures to run one advertisement in National Geographic. For a drop in the bucket, the oil giant rebrands its image as being concerned with the underwater sanctuary.

:}

More tomorrow

:}.

The Difference Between Energy Efficiency And Energy Conservation – Big difference

I have said it before and I will say it again Energy Efficiency sucks because it implies that we can keep doing what we have been doing if we just use less energy. WRONG. The growth model of capitalism and the growth model of religious dominance were always doomed to failure because they were at the heart delusional. The Earth is finite and we ain’t moving to another planet anytime soon if ever. Oh wait, first I must say:

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

The point has also been made that what we save in the residential market will only get “used” in the industrial market anyway. What we need is a whole new society design…That will take nearly cataclysmic events to produce.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/jeff-rubins-smaller-world/why-energy-efficiency-means-higher-consumption/article1419515/

Jeff Rubin's Smaller World

A blog about how weaning our economy off oil means some fundamental changes in the way we live, and other things

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 6:12 AM

Why energy efficiency means higher consumption

Jeff Rubin

Buddy, my furnace repairman, tells me it’s time to buy a new furnace. And I’d better act quickly if I still want to order the old mid-efficiency model. In the New Year, I have to buy a high-efficiency one, which, of course, costs twice as much.

Welcome to the brave new world of energy scarcity—it’s not only smaller, but also more costly. As energy prices continue to climb, you can expect to pay more, not less, for all the new energy-efficient cars and devices for your home.

But don’t count on actually saving any energy.

Efficiency may be the holy grail of the economist, but it’s a total head fake for the conservationist. And while one is being used to promote the other, the two concepts are as different as day and night.

The fact that the high-efficiency furnace generates more heat for a given amount of fuel burnt doesn’t necessarily mean I will end up with any fuel savings. As the cost of my heating falls, might it just allow me to set my thermostat higher? If so, my energy savings go right up the chimney.

That’s just where all the energy savings in the auto industry have gone over the last four decades — up the tailpipe, actually. Despite all the efficiency gains mandated by rising CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, your average North American car consumes just as much fuel today as it did back in the early 1970s. Sure, the engine is 30 per cent more efficient, but now it’s hauling around an SUV that’s driven about a third more per year than a vehicle was back then.

And it’s no different in your home. Don’t be fooled by the fact that even today’s kettle has to meet some government-mandated energy-efficiency standard. Your house consumes a lot more energy than your parents’ did.

:}

America’s Love Affair With The Car Is Over – Talking about deteriorating driveways

Maybe I won’t need mine much longer.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-car-ownership-shifts-into-reverse/article1418860/

U.S. car ownership shifts into reverse

Why are there four million fewer vehicles on the roads in 2009? Think gas prices, transit, tweeting teens and a car-to-driver ‘saturation point’

Martin Mittelstaedt

From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

Americans’ infatuation with their cars has endured through booms and busts, but last year something rare happened in the United States: The number of automobiles actually fell.

The size of the U.S. car fleet dropped by a hefty four million vehicles to 246 million, the only large decline since the U.S. Department of Transportation began modern recordkeeping in 1960. Americans bought only 10 million cars – and sent 14 million to the scrapyard.

The decline in sales from previous years came despite 2009’s cash-for-clunkers program, in which the U.S. government gave Americans up to $4,500 (U.S.) to trade in their gas guzzlers for new, more fuel-efficient cars – a program that saw nearly 700,000 vehicles scrapped.

And the overall drop in car ownership has prompted speculation that the long American love affair with the car is fading. Analysts cite such diverse factors as high gas prices, the expansion of many municipal transit systems, and the popularity of networking websites among teenagers replacing cars as a way of socializing.

“We’ve reached a sort of saturation point in this country” when it comes to cars, said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental think tank based in Washington.

The institute is issuing an analysis Wednesday that contends the drop in 2009 isn’t a one-time fluke caused by the recession, and that U.S. car ownership is likely to be entering a longer-term decline that will see the fleet drop by another 25 million by 2020.

:}

But then why this?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126264987791815617.html

Cramped on Land, Big Oil Bets at Sea

Big Oil never wanted to be here, in 4,300 feet of water far out in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling through nearly five miles of rock.

It is an expensive way to look for oil. Chevron Corp. is paying nearly $500,000 a day to the owner of the Clear Leader, one of the world’s newest and most powerful drilling rigs. The new well off the coast of Louisiana will connect to a huge platform floating nearby, which cost Chevron $650 million to build. The first phase of this oil-exploration project took more than 10 years and cost $2.7 billion —

:}

Something seems out of whack.

:}

2009 Was A Very Busy Year For Energy Conservation – And other Environmental Endeavors

http://ecopolitology.org/2009/12/29/the-top-9-stories-in-environmental-politics-of-2009/

The Top 9 Stories in Environmental Politics of 2009

From Copenhagen to Climategate, 2009 was a busy year for those of us at ecopolitology and anyone else interested in environmental politics. Here’s a rundown of what we saw as the year’s biggest environmental politics stories.

Van Jones’ Resignation

Van Jones, one of the people who was fighting hardest to create jobs in a green economy resigned his job at the White House as Special Adviser to President Obama for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. Jones was the target of a coordinated attack spearheaded by conservative media pundit, Glen Beck, for what Beck claimed was Jones’ communist leanings.

:}

From that to Number 5:

Economic Downturn and its Impact on Environment

One of the biggest stories in 2009–environmental or otherwise– was the massive economic downturn that gripped the U.S. and many other parts of the world. A tanking housing market, collapsing banks, and folding financial institutions all but dried up the available credit. As a result, homes were foreclosed, people lost their jobs and a general reluctance to invest in clean energy and pass legislation for the betterment of the environment permeated nearly every environmental debate in the country. The renewables sector was hit particularly hard for most of the year as banks were not lending up-front capital required for many renewable energy projects. Despite the economic slump, the wind industry continued to grow through the 3rd quarter, but suffered much more in Q4 of 2009.:}

From that to number 1:

Inauguration of Barack Obama as President

On January 20, 2009, the world watched as Barrack Hussein Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. Throughout his campaign, Obama promised renewed attention to energy efficiency and renewables and a return to science-based policymaking. Many argue that Obama’s unprecedented commitment to science stands in stark contrast to the previous administration’s tampering with and dismissal of scientific findings that were not in line with its political agenda.

:}

There is much much more in this article including, Cash for Clunkers; ClimateGate, Copenhagen, cccccChanges…oh sorry got carried away with the Cs.

:}

Oil Bubble – No way! There would have to be a Market in Oil for there to be a Bubble

There is no such thing as supply and demand in the liquid carbon fuel markets so it is tough to argue that there was a “Bubble” per se in the run up to 140 $$$ oil. For instance, oil spikes and gas hikes are being blamed on a “weak dollar” but in fact should be attributed to the fact that 2 major refineries in the US have been shut down and a 1000 workers laid off. In the case of the oil spike, speculators clearly ran up the price. Nearly 25% of the oil mysteriously “disappeared” from the market, only to reappear as the market fell. Those are the classic “finger prints” of a speculator driven rip off. But some people want to fog the headlights with argle bargle.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161551563

An oil bubble

Following on last week’s topic, some have suggested that maybe, like the housing bubble in the US, the spike in oil prices and their subsequent collapse could have been an oil price bubble that also pulled up the prices of natural gas.

First, we should examine the phenomena that govern the life cycle of the economic bubble-its start, growth and eventual collapse. There is no consensus on what causes a bubble. Further, one view is that a bubble can only be identified after it has manifested itself in all of its stages. It is not clear-cut since even now after the collapse of oil prices there are still questions as to whether there was an oil economic bubble. (Did we have a housing bubble?).

One thesis is that high market liquidity is necessary, though not a sufficient condition for its start. This encourages people to invest in a particular asset both to preserve the value of their money in the face of inflation, but also to sometimes sell at a higher rate later to make, as it were, a killing.

What was of particular concern in the US housing bubble is that people were persuaded to enter into mortgages that they could not really afford while the prices of the assets were rising. High liquidity encourages mark-up inflation across the board and investing in a bubble suggests that such activities may also be seen as hedges against headline inflation.

At the peak of the bubble the price fetched by the asset is far greater than the real market value, even to produce it from scratch. When the bubble bursts, prices fall and many are left with an asset, say, houses, for which they hold inverted mortgages whose values are far in excess of what the asset is worth.

Also, the mortgagee may not be able to service these assets and we have heard stories of people returning the keys of houses to the banks and walking away in the aftermath of a bubble. Looking back at the investment frenzy of the bubble many commentators have remarked on the herd instinct of the investors -more like a stampede as the herd races towards a cliff.

Last week’s article demonstrated that because of the absolute elasticity of the supply of paper-oil on the futures market, this market on its own, without reference to the economic fundamentals of the physical-oil market, cannot support a bubble. Therefore, the evidence, if any exists, has to be sought in the physical market.

In order for speculators to influence the trend price of physical-oil, futures and index investors have to continue to buy large quantities of physical-oil and hold these quantities off-market. There is no evidence that this occurred and if it did it would have to be immense quantities to manipulate a worldwide physical market as large as the present crude oil market.

Yet because of Peak Oil a bubble in oil prices could be established. Oil inventories were not excessive and any increase that there was can be explained away by the fact that oil use, particularly in China and India, also increased, impacting positively on the associated inventories.

Another test for an oil bubble (Stuart Sandiford in the Oil Drum, “Is Oil in a Price Bubble”) is the rate at which the asset price increased and if this was faster than exponential growth a bubble is in the making.

:}

dot dot dot (as they say)

If one were to examine the depreciation of the US dollar (the currency in which oil/gas prices are quoted) then with the US dollar now pegged at 1.09 Euros, the lowest it has been for seven months, it is clear that oil price adjustment is in part related to producers trying to counteract the depreciating US dollar and (temporary) stockpiling.

As the US dollar depreciates the TT dollar (tied to it) also depreciates, compounding its local depreciation against the US dollar. Thus our foreign revenues will reflect this US dollar depreciation, stockpiling and the resulting price volatility.

maryking@tstt.net.tt

:}

:}

Gasoline Down And It Will Never Be As High Again – You could call this peak gasoline but you would be wrong

There are 2 reasons for a product to run its course in a capitalist society. 1. the resource runs out like carrier pigeons in the wild or  whale oil, 2.  they become unfashionable or unsaleable. You could think of this as Peak Raccoon Skin or Peak Hats. If people quit buying the stuff, the manufacturers have to quit making it. Many times the manufacturers don’t even admit that their way of  life has ended they simply vanish…Can anyone say Pet Rock? The immediate effect of the recent Cash For Clunkers program was to immediately and permanently decrease the demand for gasoline in the US.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/10/06/peak-gasoline-is-here.aspx

Peak Gasoline Is Here


The jury’s still out on peak oil, but the concept of peak gasoline has some very credible proponents.

Last Thursday, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) CEO Rex Tillerson argued that U.S. gasoline consumption peaked in 2007. In his words, “motor vehicle gasoline demand is down, is headed down, and is going to continue to head down.”

This isn’t a new position for the prominent oil patch poobah. Back in April, The Wall Street Journal cited Exxon’s belief that U.S. light duty gasoline demand will drop by 22% by 2030.

Tillerson isn’t alone in the peak-gasoline camp, either. The government’s own estimates indicate that gasoline consumption peaked in 2007, at 371.2 million gallons per day. Cambridge Energy Research Associates has concluded that 2007 was probably the peak, barring a collapse in the oil price.

The main drivers (ahem) of this trend are the dovetailing desires for reduced oil dependence, lower emissions, and better fuel efficiency. The high oil prices of 2008 — and even today’s prices, which are quite high by historical standards — have been a major force to shift consumer preferences toward more compact and efficient vehicles, including hybrids. Lithium-ion battery whiz A123 (Nasdaq: AONE) certainly has high oil prices — and government greenbacks — to thank for its recent warm reception on Wall Street.

A parallel development is the army of venture capital-backed science projects seeking all manner of petroleum alternatives to stick in your fuel tank. Renewable fuel standards — optimistic, given current funding levels –hold out the promise of a robust end market for these products.

:}

Yah know how I know?

http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2009/10/05/daily22.html

Sunoco idling Eagle Point plant, furloughing 400 workers

Philadelphia Business Journal – by Peter Key Staff Writer

Sunoco Inc. said Tuesday it is indefinitely idling its Eagle Point refinery in Westville, N.J., and furloughing all 400 workers there.

The Philadelphia-based oil refiner and gasoline retailer also said it is halving its quarterly dividend to 15 cents from 30 cents, starting with the first quarter of next year.

Sunoco (NYSE:SUN) said it decided to idle Eagle Point in response to the margin pressure faced by refiners from the sagging economy, weak demand and increased global refining capacity.

The company said it will shift production from Eagle Point to its refineries in Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, Pa. It said it will be able to produce the same amount of refined products at those two refineries that it had been producing at them plus Eagle Point and still meet demand.

Sunoco said it will keep Eagle Point idle until market conditions improve and will consider other options for the refinery, including using it to produce alternative fuels.

The company said it will continue to pay its contribution to medical benefits for the Eagle Point employees for the duration of their furlough. It also will offer them a voluntary severance program that includes job-placement assistance and retraining.

Sunoco said it expects to incur pre-tax charges of $475 million to $500 million, most of which will be noncash, from idling Eagle Point. It will record most in the recently ended quarter and the rest in the current quarter.

:}

It must be tough to become obsolete.

:}

The Fall Poker Scoot Was Difficult Because Of Bad Weather – But we soldiered on

The Poker Run for Motor Scooters that CES started for Earth Day in the Spring continued in the Fall. The Weather was bad, the Ridership was low but we still had a good time. The food at Mike Carter’s was really really good. Thanks to the SCOOTER GUYS! Websites first:

http://www.overturfpowersports.com/

http://www.farmandhomesupply.com/

http://www.jiffistop.com/

http://thecornerpubandgrill.com/

http://www.carterswestside.com/index.htm

:}

Then the Poker Scoot:

We started at GrabAJava like always

pokerscoot5.jpg

Moved on to Overturfs

pokerscoot8.jpg

Stopped at the really nice people at Farm and Home

pokerscoot4.jpg

Then they went for a big ride to Cantral, Salsbury and back to JiffiStop

pokerscoot6.jpg

We skipped over to the Corner Pub and Grill

pokerscoot9.jpg

The Scoot ended at the great guys, The Scooter Guys, and great cooks at Carter’s Westside

pokerscoot3.jpg pokerscoot11.jpg

Everyone WON because we had 4 brave riders (and we saved some loot for next Spring)

winner2.jpg winner1.jpgwinner3.jpgwinner4.jpg

:}

Next year we will have a sign up sheet with a minimum number of riders and a backup date.

:}

Happy Birthday To Oil, Happy Birthday To Oil, Happy Birthday To OOOOOOil

Happy birthday to you…You belooooong in a zoo. Actually you made Zoos absolutely necessary as ARKS for the species that our use of oil has driven either to extinction or near extinction.

 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/oilat150/

Wired Science News for Your Neurons

Happy 150th, Oil! So Long, and Thanks for Modern Civilization

 

  • 2:39 pm  |
  • Categories: Energy

shootingthewell

One hundred and fifty years ago on Aug. 27, Colonel Edwin L. Drake sunk the very first commercial well that produced flowing petroleum.

The discovery that large amounts of oil could be found underground marked the beginning of a time during which this convenient fossil fuel became America’s dominant energy source.

But what began 150 years ago won’t last another 150 years — or even another 50. The era of cheap oil is ending, and with another energy transition upon us, we’ve got to scavenge all the lessons we can from its remarkable history.

“I would see this as less of an anniversary to note for celebration and more of an anniversary to note how far we’ve come and the serious moment that we’re at right now,” said Brian Black, an energy historian at Pennsylvania State University and and author of the book Petrolia. “Energy transitions happen and I argue that we’re in one right now and that we need to aggressively look to the future to what’s going to happen after petroleum.”

When Drake and others sunk their wells, there were no cars, no plastics, no chemical industry. Water power was the dominant industrial energy source. Steam engines burning coal were on the rise, but the nation’s energy system — unlike Great Britain’s — still used fossil fuels sparingly. The original role for oil was as an illuminant, not a motor fuel, which would come decades later.

Before the 1860s, petroleum was a well-known curiosity. People collected it with blankets or skimmed it off naturally occurring oil seeps. Occasionally they drank some of it as a medicine or rubbed it on aching joints.

Some people had the bright idea of distilling it to make fuel for lamps, but it was easier to get lamp fuel from pig fat or whale oil or converted coal. Without a steady supply, there was no point in developing a whole system and infrastructure dedicated to petroleum.

Nonetheless, some Yankee capitalists from Connecticut were convinced that oil could be found in the ground and exploited. They recruited “Colonel” Edwin Drake, who was not a Colonel at all, mostly because he was charming and unemployed. He, in turn, found someone skilled in the art of drilling, or what passed for it in those days.

Drake and his sidekick “Uncle Billy” Smith started looking underground for oil in the spring of ‘59. They used a heavy metal tip attached to a rope, sending it plummeting down the borehole like a ram to break up the rock. It was slow going.

On Aug. 27, 1859, at 69 feet of depth, Drake and Smith hit oil. It was a big deal, but the Civil War stalled the immediate development of the rock oil industry.

“When the discovery happened, the few people who were there and not involved in the war, went around and bought all the property they could and had outside investors come in,” Black said. “But the real heyday of the development happened from 1864-1870. It’s that 11-year period when the little river valley was the world’s leading supplier of oil.”

derrickforest

The “little river valley” in western Pennsylvania earned the nickname Petrolia. Centered in the Oil Creek valley about one hundred miles north of Pittsburgh, the wells of Pithole, Titusville and Oil City pumped 56 million barrels of oil out of the ground from 1859 to 1873.

:}
Though there is some question about whether it was the first well in the world or even in the US:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=whither-the-oil-age-150-years-of-bl-2009-08-27

And let's get the record straight. The Drake well was not
the first oil well in the U.S. Historical geologic research data
my father paid for circa 1979 pegged a well outside Oneida Tenn.
as the first producing oil well in the U.S. It preceeded the
Drake Well by a couple of decades or more (I believe the well
was struck around 1819 but I am going from memory as I read the survey
a long time ago). Unfortunately it was deep in mountainous terrain
making it nearly impossible to commercialize. Plus there wasn't
much of a use for oil yet. The well was accidental - they were actually
after water. The survey mentioned the Drake well as being considered
the first viable commerical well. But the Drake well definitely was
not the first oil well in the U.S. Dad commissioned the survey because
of a good oil producing lease on the mountain that over looks
Huntsville Tenn. In fact, the land was leased from Bobby York - one of
the grandsons of Alvin York. Yes, that Alvin York, a.k.a. "Seargent York"
 of WWI fame.

:}

Even then there were people who thought that the mass consumption of oil would cause big problems:

http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/arrhenius-svante-august

Arrhenius, Svante August (1859-1927)

Swedish chemist

Svante August Arrhenius was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research on the theory of electrolytic dissociation, a theory that had won the lowest possible passing grade for his Ph.D. two decades earlier. Arrhenius’s work with chemistry was often closely tied to the science of physics, so much so that the Nobel committee was not sure in which of the two fields to make the 1903 award. In fact, Arrhenius is regarded as one of the founders of physical chemistry—the field of science in which physical laws are used to explain chemical phenomena. In the last decades of his life Arrhenius became interested in theories of the origin of life on Earth, arguing that life had arrived on our planet by means of spores blown through space from other inhabited worlds. He was also one of the first scientists to study the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in a phenomenon now known as the greenhouse effect.

Arrhenius was born on February 19, 1859, in Vik (also known as Wik or Wijk), in the district of Kalmar, Sweden. His mother was the former Carolina Thunberg, and his father was Svante Gustaf Arrhenius, a land surveyor and overseer at the castle of Vik on Lake Mälaren, near Uppsala. Young Svante gave evidence of his intellectual brilliance at an early age. He taught himself to read by the age of three and learned to do arithmetic by watching his father keep books for the estate of which he was in charge. Arrhenius began school at the age of eight, when he entered the fifth-grade class at the Cathedral School in Uppsala. After graduating in 1876, Arrhenius enrolled at the University of Uppsala.

:}

Feds Form 5695 That You Use To Claim The Big Ticket Items In The Stimulus Package

I know that this is an obvious ploy for google numbers but I am the original google whore. I tried to get the PDF file from the Feds converted to a Word file so we could become the goto site for such things but I failed miserabley…(psss. it jam band friday –http://www.youtube.com )

All I succeeded in doing was getting the instructions but I think even they are instructive. In fact I will put the locations of the forms 5695, 3800 and 8910:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8910.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3800.pdf

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OgkjcW0g4

There was a comedian whose whole stick was to read the tax code in a very high minded and serious tone and used to cause audiences to roar. This was the case because we have all had our tax code moments, because we can imagine little people in offices dreaming this shit up, and because we can see people taking advantage of it.

General Instructions

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.

What’s New for 2008 Nonbusiness energy property credit expired. You cannot take the nonbusiness energy property credit for property placed in service in 2008.

Credit expanded. You can now include costs for qualified small wind energy property and qualified geothermal heat pump property in figuring the residential energy efficient property credit.

What’s New for 2009 Nonbusiness energy property credit available. The nonbusiness energy property credit will be available for property placed in service in 2009. The credit is available for items such as high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, water heaters, windows, doors, and insulation. The amount of the credit will be limited by the amount of any nonbusiness energy property credit you took in 2006 or 2007.

Qualified solar electric property. There is no limit on the amount of qualified solar electric property costs when figuring the residential energy efficient property credit.

Purpose of Form

Use Form 5695 to figure and take your residential energy efficient property credit, including any credit carryforward from 2007. :}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zkEppr68PM

Apperently you can not be a human and take advantage of this but if you are a Home well you are in like Flin.

Who Can Take the Credit

You may be able to take the credit if you made energy saving improvements to your home located in the United States in 2008. For credit purposes, costs are treated as being paid when the original installation of the item is completed, or in the case of costs connected with the construction or reconstruction of your home, when your original use of the constructed or reconstructed home begins. If less than 80% of the use of an item is for nonbusiness purposes, only that portion of the costs that are allocable to the nonbusiness use can be used to determine the credit.

Home. A home is where you lived in 2008 and can include a house, houseboat, mobile home, cooperative apartment, condominium, and a manufactured home that conforms to Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards.

You must reduce the basis of your home by the amount of any credits allowed.

Main home. Your main home is generally the home where you live most of the time. A temporary absence due to special circumstances, such as illness, education, business, military service, or vacation, will not change your main home.

Special rules. If you are a member of a condominium management association for a condominium you own or a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative housing corporation, you are treated as having paid your proportionate share of any costs of such association or corporation.

Subsidized energy financing. Any amounts provided for by subsidized energy financing cannot be used to figure the credit. This is financing provided under a

federal, state, or local program, the principal purpose of

which is to provide subsidized financing for projects designed to conserve or produce energy.

Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit

You may be able to take a credit of 30% of your costs of qualified solar electric property, solar water heating property, fuel cell property, small wind energy property, and geothermal heat pump property. This includes labor costs properly allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original installation of the property and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to the home. This credit is limited to:

                      $2,000 for qualified solar electric property costs,

                      $2,000 for qualified solar water heating property costs,

                      $500 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified fuel cell property for which qualified fuel cell property costs are paid.

                      $500 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified small wind energy property for which qualified small wind energy property costs are paid (not to exceed $4,000), and

                      $2,000 for qualified geothermal heat pump property costs.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byjPd28KegM

I could let this stuff go with out comment but then that is nearly impossible. So if I spend money to cut down my neighbors tree so I can get my solar access back, is that tax deductible?

Qualified solar electric property costs. Qualified solar electric property costs are costs for property that uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in your home located in the United States. This includes costs relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof or a portion of a roof. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified solar water heating property costs.

Qualified solar water heating property costs are costs for property to heat water for use in your home located in the United States if at least half of the energy used by the solar water heating property for such purpose is derived from the sun. This includes costs relating to a solar panel or other property installed as a roof or a portion of a roof. To qualify for the credit, the property must be certified for performance by the nonprofit Solar Rating Certification Corporation or a comparable entity endorsed by the government of the state in which the property is installed. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified fuel cell property costs. Qualified fuel cell property costs are costs for qualified fuel cell property installed on or in connection with your main home located in the United States. Qualified fuel cell property is an integrated system comprised of a fuel cell stack assembly and associated balance of plant components that converts a fuel into electricity using electrochemical means. To qualify for the credit, the fuel cell property must have a nameplate capacity of at least one-half kilowatt of electricity using an electrochemical process and an electricity-only generation efficiency greater than 30%.

Costs allocable to a swimming pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a function other than the function of such storage do not qualify for the residential energy efficiency credit.  

Qualified small wind energy property costs.

Qualified small wind energy property costs are costs for property that uses a wind turbine to generate electricity for use in connection with your home located in the United States. The home does not have to be your main home.

Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs.

Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs are costs for qualified geothermal heat pump property installed on or in connection with your home located in the United States. Qualified geothermal heat pump property is any equipment that uses the ground or ground water as a thermal energy source to heat your home or as a thermal energy sink to cool your home. To qualifiy for the credit, the geothermal heat pump property must meet the requirements of the Energy Star program that are in effect at the time of purchase. The home does not have to be your main home.

Married taxpayers with more than one home. If you or your spouse lived in more than one home, the credit limits would apply to each of you separately. For qualified fuel cell property, the homes must be your main homes. If you are filing separate returns, both of you must complete a separate Form 5695. If you are filing a joint return, figure your nonbusiness energy property credit as follows.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3cR2H38Wo&feature=related So what do you want to be when you grow up little Johnny? Tax payer A or Tax payer B?

1.        Complete a separate Form 5695 for each home through line 21.

2.        On one of the forms, complete line 22. Then, figure the amount to be entered on line 23 of both forms and enter the combined amount on line 23 of this form.

3.        On the dotted line to the left of the entry space for line 23, enter “More than one home”. Then, complete the rest of this form.

4.        Attach both forms to your return. Joint occupancy. If you occupied your home jointly, each occupant must complete his or her own Form 5695. To figure the credit, the maximum qualifying costs that can be taken into account by all occupants for figuring the credit is $6,667 for qualified solar electric, solar water heating, or geothermal heat pump property; and $1,667 for each one-half kilowatt of capacity of qualified fuel cell or small wind energy property (not to exceed $13,333 for qualified small

 

wind energy property). The amount allocable to you is the lesser of:

1. The amount you paid, or

2. The maximum qualifying cost of the property multiplied by a fraction. The numerator is the amount you paid and the denominator is the total amount paid by you and all other occupants.

These rules do not apply to married individuals filing a joint return.

Example. Taxpayer A owns a house with Taxpayer B where they both reside. In 2008, they installed qualified solar water heating property at a cost of $8,000. Taxpayer A paid $6,000 towards the cost of the property and Taxpayer B paid the remaining $2,000. The amount of cost allocable to Taxpayer A is $5,000 ($6,667 X $6,000/$8,000). The amount of cost allocable to Taxpayer B is $1,667 ($6,667 X $2,000/$8,000).

Specific Instructions

 Also include on lines 1, 5, 9, 13, or 18, any

labor costs properly allocable to the onsite

preparation, assembly, or original installation

of the property and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to the home.

Line 1

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified solar electric property. See Qualified solar electric property costs on page 3.

Line 5

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified solar water heating property. See Qualified solar water heating property costs on page 3.

Line 9

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified fuel cell property. See Qualified fuel cell property costs on page 3.

Line 13

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified small wind energy property. See Qualified small wind energy property costs on this page.

Line 18

Enter the amounts you paid for qualified geothermal heat pump property. See Qualified geothermal heat pump property costs on this page.

Line 25

If you are claiming the child tax credit for 2008, include on this line the amount from line 12 of the Line 11 Worksheet in Pub. 972.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8jDc_vu9is

Right about now you are saying I can’t take anymore. Why did I ever think about doing these energy improvements. Get me out of this tax hell. But there is more.

If you are not claiming the child tax credit for 2008, you do not need Pub. 972.

Line 28

If you cannot use all of the credit because of the tax liability limit (line 26 is less than line 23), you can carry the unused portion of the credit to 2009.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax.

You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a form or its instructions must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

The average time and expenses required to complete and file this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. For the estimated averages, see the instructions for your income tax return.

If you have suggestions for making this form simpler, we would be happy to hear from you. See the instructions for your income tax return.

:}

Now all you have to do is make copies for your records, double check that everything is signed, put it all in an envelop with the proper postage and address, mail it off and PRAY…have a nice day.

http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/SouthernObamaSupport

:}