New worry for drivers: BP shuts oilfield

[derstuka]

Expect gas prices to go even higher...

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/07/news/international/oil_alaska/index.htm?cnn=yes

New worry for drivers: BP shuts oilfield
Damaged pipeline in Alaska affects about 8% of U.S. oil production.
August 7 2006: 8:34 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In a blow to drivers already struggling with high gasoline prices, BP was forced to shut off about 8 percent of the nation's oil supply after discovering "unexpectedly severe corrosion" in the Alaskan pipeline.

BP announced early Monday that the pipeline problems had caused it to begin the first shutdown ever in the biggest oilfield in the United States, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. (Video:BP spokesman comments)


Special Reportfull coverage

$3-plus for gas, but we keep buying more
Oil surpasses $76 on Alaska shutdown
New worry for drivers: BP shuts oilfield
Dubai to take control of offshore oil


All you need to know about energy
Where it comes from

[rockgremlin]

Time to buy a hybrid.....errr....wait, I already have. :haha:

[accadacca]

Time to buy a hybrid.....errr....wait, I already have. :haha:
Ditto! :party:

[stefan]

kudos to you guys ... that ROCKS :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

Time to ride my bike to work again. It's starting to cool down so I just might start up again.

[moabfool]

The reason for the oil shortage is simple. Nobody thought to check the oil. Oil is produced in Alaska, Texas, Wyoming, California and Utah. The dipsticks are in Washington DC.

[cachehiker]

Time to ride my bike to work again. It's starting to cool down so I just might start up again.

You stopped?

[Shan]

I know it's been mentioned before - the Pruis and Element are the hybrids you guys have?

[rockgremlin]

I know it's been mentioned before - the Pruis and Element are the hybrids you guys have?

Ya, we both drive a Prius. Acca's is a newer model. I drive a 2001.

[derstuka]

All we need now is Iran to shut off, or reduce, their oil supply and we are gonna see some very scary numbers at the pump. Not that these numbers aren't scary already.

[rockgremlin]

All we need now is Iran to shut off, or reduce, their oil supply and we are gonna see some very scary numbers at the pump. Not that these numbers aren't scary already.

Not really. Iran actually doesn't supply the U.S. with much oil at all. In fact, Norway ships the U.S. more oil than Iran -- believe it or not!!!

The top 5 exporters of oil to the U.S. are:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria

The "Blood for Oil" campaign is just bull$hit!

[derstuka]

All we need now is Iran to shut off, or reduce, their oil supply and we are gonna see some very scary numbers at the pump. Not that these numbers aren't scary already.

Not really. Iran actually doesn't supply the U.S. with much oil at all. In fact, Norway ships the U.S. more oil than Iran -- believe it or not!!!

The top 5 exporters of oil to the U.S. are:

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria

The "Blood for Oil" campaign is just bull$hit!

My point isn't who ships the US the most oil, it is the how the market reacts to an oil embargo. The fact of the matter is if you cut off a major oil exporter (especially part of OPEC) is has a nasty domino effect. Other non-US friendly countries could jump in as well. Not to mention other countries that used to get oil from Iran are now going to be demanding more from the remaining oil, oil that might have been ear-marked for the US. It is easy to see how this could happen seeing as how a barrel of oil has now doubled in the past 2-3 years. The mass industrialization of China, and India, and the their growing thirst for oil doesn't help either.

[rockgremlin]

Ah! I see. Point taken.

In case anyone was wondering where I get my statistics, here's a great link from the Department of Energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

[derstuka]

Ah! I see. Point taken.

In case anyone was wondering where I get my statistics, here's a great link from the Department of Energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

It is always interesting when I inform people that we get more oil from Canada than any other country. They argue and swear it is Saudi. We gots to be nice to our northern neighbor. Good old oil/tar sands. :2thumbs:

[derstuka]

Hey Rock,

I'm sure you are well-informed on the "in situ conversion" process that Shell is giving another run. I know that they tried this in the early 80's with not a lot of success, but it looks as Shell "might" be on the right track. Amazing how much oil can be had if this is proved feasible/sustainable.



Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick
STORY TOOLS
Email this story | Print
Linda Seebach
email | bioSeptember 2, 2005
When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!
Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.

Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.

Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):

Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.

Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.

On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.

And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.

Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.

That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.

Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).

Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.

The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.

Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.

I'll say it again. Wow.

[Iceaxe]

1. Canada

This ticks me off..... not Canada, but that our government is made up of a bunch of dumbasses.....

Canada is #1 because their government funded development of their tar sands about 10 years.... so why am I PO'd? Because tar sand is very similar to our oil shale..... same but different.... anyhoo.... if our government had of spent a little cash on research into extracting oil from shale we would be sitting pretty at the moment same as Canada. Instead we have more oil locked up in oil shale then is contained in the entire middle east. But we were to damn lazy to fund research into extracting the oil.

I know this stuff because 10 years ago I helped design a test plant that extracted oil from shale. But then the price of imported oil fell and our government yanked the seed money.

My biggest complaint with our government is that they only look 4 years ahead to the next election. I wish we would elect officials for 6 years and limit them to one term.

OK..... climbing down off my soap box.

[stefan]

[referring above ice's post]

that being said, as far as crude oil goes, the top 3 including saudi arabia are all sufficiently close enough to be thought of as equally important, perhaps.

how about the "evil" iraq with 666 in may06 :twisted: :angryfire:

[rockgremlin]

we have more oil locked up in oil shale then is contained in the entire middle east.

Yup. That stat right there is just ridiculous, and most people don't believe it. I think we're on the verge of a very critical time as far as satisfying our energy needs. Maybe $3.50 gas isn't so bad after all, considering it's spurring us to get off our asses and do something about it. :2thumbs:

I heard about the process Shell was "cooking up" last year. My professors explained that the biggest problem with it up to that point was that (without the ice wall) it contaminates the groundwater, and they were having problems with it occasionally catching fire on the surface. Looks like they may have solved the groundwater problem.

[derstuka]

1. Canada

if our government had of spent a little cash on research into extracting oil from shale we would be sitting pretty at the moment same as Canada.

That is probably part of the problem, our government was heading the research, instead of the private sector.

[stefan]

nah, we need to spend that money and research power on discovering more efficient and less polluting energy sources and technology. even all the shale you speak of won't be sufficient to satiate the world's ever-increasing need of oil ... cough cough.

[stefan]

rockgremlin,

so basically this new method by shell, apparently, greatly improves on the environmental impact of the earlier approach of strip mining the shale, which seemed to be JUST as negative as its high cost.

i should say that i am ALWAYS skeptical of anyone who says that they have "solved the problem" of any sort of pollution, e.g. the ground water problem and freezing/ice wall. i would say minimized may be more of an appropriate term, but you can always expect some problems. and with any oil there are always accidents that occur that lead to pollution, regardless of the method of extraction.

while this new approach seems better than the previous approach ... if we do get going on this, we're talking about A LOT of land in these 3 states that will be turned into these "new age" mines for YEARS. what, in your studies, have you learned about what state this land will be in after all of the oil will be used up/operation stops?

[Sombeech]

Time to ride my bike to work again. It's starting to cool down so I just might start up again.

You stopped?

Yeah, it got too hot. I'd be sweating uncontrollably at work, even hours after the ride in. Plus, I was hitting a trail every week, and the treadmill a couple of times a week.

I'm ready to start riding in again though. I just hate not showering once I get there. I have to go and "powder up" with Gold Bond in the bathroom. It usually does the trick.

[derstuka]

Time to ride my bike to work again. It's starting to cool down so I just might start up again.

You stopped?

Yeah, it got too hot. I'd be sweating uncontrollably at work, even hours after the ride in. Plus, I was hitting a trail every week, and the treadmill a couple of times a week.

I'm ready to start riding in again though. I just hate not showering once I get there. I have to go and "powder up" with Gold Bond in the bathroom. It usually does the trick.

Awww man, don't they have a hose??? Gots to shower up!

[Sombeech]

Awww man, don't they have a hose??? Gots to shower up!

Funny thing is, we're a PLUMBING WHOLESALER. We've got shower stalls and faucets stacked to the ceiling. There's just never been one installed there before. I'm looking into it though.

Maybe I'll come in, and be negligent about my body odor. Then, THEY will decide it's time to install a shower.


...or fire me. Whatever's cheaper.

[derstuka]

nah, we need to spend that money and research power on discovering more efficient and less polluting energy sources and technology. even all the shale you speak of won't be sufficient to satiate the world's ever-increasing need of oil ... cough cough.

No need to tell me sir, I am always preaching about green/renewable energy; however, just think for a second how much gas would be saved if most everyone (that could afford it) had a fuel efficient car instead of a gas-guzzler that gets 10-12 to the gas which in turn they use as their daily driver. I am always concerned as well about the pollution aspect of it, and what this process may do to the environment, no matter how clean that big oil proclaims it to be, but we have to keep in mind that switching over to alternative energy is not going to happen over night, and we need a better means to meet/sustain our own energy needs. A possible downfall of this would be that IF Shell made this process feasible, and they started producing oil by millions and billions of barrels, I just know that many would get comfortable again once the gas prices went down and back to the gas-guzzler. It happened once, and it will happen again. Sadly, most people do not look far enough ahead, only the price at the local gas station.

[moabfool]

The craziest part is that there's not an oil shortage (yet). There's a gasoline shortage, and only in the US. In fact there isn't even a gasoline shortage, there's a storage capacity shortage. The refineries are able to produce plenty of gas and fuel oil for our yearly needs, but in the winter, when gasoline demand is low, they have to shut down because the bulk storage tanks are full.

Tankers are sitting off the coast (losing $50,000 per day each) waiting to off load because refinery capacity is so tight that the tankers are being used as bulk storage. The US gasoline "shortage" is what's driving oil prices higher, not an oil shortage. If we increased storage and refining capacity the price would drop.

[derstuka]

The craziest part is that there's not an oil shortage (yet). There's a gasoline shortage, and only in the US. In fact there isn't even a gasoline shortage, there's a storage capacity shortage. The refineries are able to produce plenty of gas and fuel oil for our yearly needs, but in the winter, when gasoline demand is low, they have to shut down because the bulk storage tanks are full.

Tankers are sitting off the coast (losing $50,000 per day each) waiting to off load because refinery capacity is so tight that the tankers are being used as bulk storage. The US gasoline "shortage" is what's driving oil prices higher, not an oil shortage. If we increased storage and refining capacity the price would drop.

Yeah, and not many states are approving new refineries because of high public opposition. This is true, however, the price may drop somewhat if we had more storage/refinery capacity, but that doesn't change the fact that oil is now trading at $77 dollars a barrel as opposed to $35 dollars 2-3 years ago. Mass industrialization of developing countries is putting yet another strain on the demand for oil.

For now at least, I believe our best weapon against big oil is to simply consume less, whether that means riding your bike once a week, purchasing a gas miser, or the like. I do not believe ethanol from corn (although sugarcane ethanol has a higher energy yield, and cellulosic ethanol might be more worthwhile than corn) is going to do much. Too much energy (and land) is wasted in the process, and has only like 2/3's of the energy density as gasoline. Which in turn would mean that we burn a lot more of it to go the same distance. I still like that the hydrogen economy is one of the most feasible solutions to gasoline. Fuel cells are gonna be the way of the future. There still are problems to iron out but having water as the only byproduct can't be beat.

[stefan]

nah, we need to spend that money and research power on discovering more efficient and less polluting energy sources and technology. even all the shale you speak of won't be sufficient to satiate the world's ever-increasing need of oil ... cough cough.

No need to tell me sir, I am always preaching about green/renewable energy; however, just think for a second how much gas would be saved if most everyone (that could afford it) had a fuel efficient car instead of a gas-guzzler that gets 10-12 to the gas which in turn they use as their daily driver. I am always concerned as well about the pollution aspect of it, and what this process may do to the environment, no matter how clean that big oil proclaims it to be, but we have to keep in mind that switching over to alternative energy is not going to happen over night, and we need a better means to meet/sustain our own energy needs. A possible downfall of this would be that IF Shell made this process feasible, and they started producing oil by millions and billions of barrels, I just know that many would get comfortable again once the gas prices went down and back to the gas-guzzler. It happened once, and it will happen again. Sadly, most people do not look far enough ahead, only the price at the local gas station.

first i should say i wasn't only referring to your post and i definitely agree that some effort needs to be made to improve our efficiency when it comes to using oil, no doubt about that. and you do bring up a very good point about shell's potential impact on our oil consumption. although, hopefully by that time we can set better standards(LAWS) and counteract that type of response.

but my issue is that i am very worried that we'll spend more money and more effort funding the improving of energy output from oil rather than working on new forms of energy. to me this is more important and needs to be funded in exceeding amounts, calling upon the most brilliant and imaginative scientists which at the moment we unfortunately are not. in fact, if the united states worked out this problem, they could develop a completely new economy based on it, course that's not good for the current economy which is heavliy based on oil and oil consumption.

maybe i read to much science and realized what people are capable of when they put their minds to it. it just seems that the status quo stands way too much in the way. i agree nothing will change over instantly. but when you get superfocused on stretching a resource, you ALSO get comfortable with the time it buys you and thinking in the terms of ONLY that problem. [and i'll admit, new ideas NOT based on oil could come out of this research ... potentially]

i just think that while a portion of the money/research effort SHOULD go to this problem as it's a necessity, i think a larger portion should go into new energy. simply put, i believe we are too complacent and will continue to be so.

[derstuka]

first i should say i wasn't only referring to your post and i definitely agree that some effort needs to be made to improve our efficiency when it comes to using oil, no doubt about that. and you do bring up a very good point about shell's potential impact on our oil consumption. although, hopefully by that time we can set better standards(LAWS) and counteract that type of response.

but my issue is that i am very worried that we'll spend more money and more effort funding the improving of energy output from oil rather than working on new forms of energy. to me this is more important and needs to be funded in exceeding amounts, calling upon the most brilliant and imaginative scientists which at the moment we unfortunately are not. in fact, if the united states worked out this problem, they could develop a completely new economy based on it, course that's not good for the current economy which is heavliy based on oil and oil consumption.

maybe i read to much science and realized what people are capable of when they put their minds to it. it just seems that the status quo stands way too much in the way. i agree nothing will change over instantly. but when you get superfocused on stretching a resource, you ALSO get comfortable with the time it buys you and thinking in the terms of ONLY that problem. [and i'll admit, new ideas NOT based on oil could come out of this research ... potentially]

i just think that while a portion of the money/research effort SHOULD go to this problem as it's a necessity, i think a larger portion should go into new energy. simply put, i believe we are too complacent and will continue to be so.

I agree with you, and that was one of my points...the potential downfalls of discovering new oil. If we keep stretching our oil resource(s), then we all get back into our comfy chairs and we stop worrying about what to do about the shortage/pollution problems of oil. It happens all the time. Sad to say, the only way that many people will change is if you give them no other option than to purchase a fuel efficient/alternative fuel car/truck. If all this time we had been spending millions on alternative fuels, things would be much different now...as far as oil is concerned.

[stefan]

I agree with you, and that was one of my points...

sure ... i was simply clarifying the meaning of what i originally intended with my post.

but i should also point out that my fear is not simply due to complacency resulting from the stretching of a resource, it's more fundanmentally due to human nature ... that is, unless we FORCE ourselves to think beyond, we tend not to.

[derstuka]

but i should also point out that my fear is not simply due to complacency resulting from the stretching of a resource, it's more fundanmentally due to human nature ... that is, unless we FORCE ourselves to think beyond, we tend not to.

This is the real scary thing, and is one of our number #1 problems. It's more like someone has to force us to think beyond. Many people do not think further ahead than their next meal.

[rockgremlin]

Here's some irony for ya -- Guess who's spending millions a year in research for renewable energy?

http://www.bp.com/home.do?categoryId=1
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br
http://www.chevron.com/technology/

It's inevitable.

Fossil fuels won't last forever. Big oil knows this, and is looking to get in on the ground floor so that once renewables eventually do replace fossil fuels they will be able to still remain afloat.

[Sombeech]

Fossil fuels won't last forever. Big oil knows this, and is looking to get in on the ground floor so that once renewables eventually do replace fossil fuels they will be able to still remain afloat.

It's true. Some people think the oil companies are trying to cover this fact up, but they're not. The oil companies will be the FIRST on board with new energy methods, even if they come in under a different name.

Kind of like the Legalizing Marijuana issue. Some think that the tobacco companies are fighting against marijuana because they fear they'd lose business, but to the contrary. Tobacco businesses would be the first mass producers of marijuana cigarettes if it ever came legal. They have more capacity than anybody to distribute it.

So, oil companies are just as interested, if not more, as anybody else to keep energy available and inexpensive.

[stefan]

Here's some irony for ya -- Guess who's spending millions a year in research for renewable energy?


not really ironic, but i don't exactly trust these energy companies as they have their own interests and timetable in mind.

i am talking about independent research that needs to be done.

[rockgremlin]

Here's some irony for ya -- Guess who's spending millions a year in research for renewable energy?


not really ironic, but i don't exactly trust these energy companies as they have their own interests and timetable in mind.

Of course they have their own interests in mind - they're running a business!! If they can't make good on their renewable promises, they're doomed. They're not just putting up millions of bucks today to look pretty for the public. They're putting up millions in order to secure their future interests.

By the way, if renewable technology could be used on a mass scale tomorrow, then why haven't other countries (Japan, Europe) come on line with it yet? Why hasn't the private sector come up with it yet?

My point is the "switch" from oil to renewable is going to be a slow one -- probably decades.

[stefan]

Here's some irony for ya -- Guess who's spending millions a year in research for renewable energy?


not really ironic, but i don't exactly trust these energy companies as they have their own interests and timetable in mind.

Of course they have their own interests in mind - they're running a business!! If they can't make good on their renewable promises, they're doomed. They're not just putting up millions of bucks today to look pretty for the public. They're putting up millions in order to secure their future interests.



sure ... nothing surprising there.



By the way, if renewable technology could be used on a mass scale tomorrow, then why haven't other countries (Japan, Europe) come on line with it yet? Why hasn't the private sector come up with it yet?


complacency compounded by politico-economic stubbornness



My point is the "switch" from oil to renewable is going to be a slow one -- probably decades.

and my point, it may not have had to be, had we thought and acted differently in the past. :ne_nau:

[moabfool]

My point is the "switch" from oil to renewable is going to be a slow one -- probably decades.

and my point, it may not have had to be, had we thought and acted differently in the past. :ne_nau:

The change over will take a while. My car runs on gasoline, and that ain't gonna change any time soon. That's why I support the improvement of the present system and exploring alternatives. Even if a new technology comes along it'll take a while to phaze out the petrol burners.

[Sombeech]

There's nothing wrong with a business that maximizes it's profits.

We have the choice to be it's customers though. It seems so many people are furious about the big oil companies, and they're all waiting for somebody else to do something about it.

[stefan]

There's nothing wrong with a business that maximizes it's profits.

hmm, well sombeech, i may be being picky here, but i have to say, altough capitalism suggests this provided the business abides by the law, i do believe that i hold some concern about how far a company should go. i am talking in generalities here, not about oil, but i am not giving any specific examples either. i do believe that we as a society need to hold our companies accountable for their actions. if they make a product which is shown to be detrimental to society, for example, though legal, i think that to some extent they need to be held responsible for the ramifications, especially if such companies hold dominion over a large part of the market. they should not view people as represented by dollar bills in reparations. if the product is shown to have problems they should remove it entirely, until the problems are fixed. i don't believe making money should take priority over this, though many would clearly disagree. businesses need to be kept in check, at least to some extent. yes i know we have laws for this stuff, but in some difficult cases, laws would be tricky to apply or to create. i don't believe there is anything unreasonable about holding our companies to a higher expectation. and, i don't think in all cases the choice to support a company or not would necessarily solve these issues, but i agree in many, with the proper knowledge, it can.

[Sombeech]

businesses need to be kept in check, at least to some extent.

That's what good old fashioned capitalism does for us. If the customer is not satisfied with the product, they go somewhere else for their needs. It's a self-maintaining process. Businesses will suffer when they lose customers, and they are forced to change.

So, if something needs to change about a business, we shouldn't attack it. We should do the opposite, by not giving it our business.

Remember when the US Mail service started to take a dive? It sucked so bad, because it knew there wasn't much competition. And then UPS and Fed Ex came about, and the US Mail started losing business like crazy. It had to shape up and improve it's customer service to regain it's customer base.

Good old capitalism.

[stefan]

okay, but i was suggesting that it doesn't always work.

let's take the popular example and look at junkfood. something like 90% of what almost all convenience stores and fastfood joints offer is straight up junkfood ... holding very little in redeeming value. such food is ubiquitous in this country, so much so that it's difficult to find decent food without going to a sitdown restaurant or a grocery store. it clearly is detrimental to society, as it is unhealthy yet cheap, fast and pushed by superseductive marketing. it's in the best interest of the companies that produce it because it's so effective at generating MAJOR profits, BUT at the exploitation of a human weakness. it's so bad that california has decided to establish an outright tax on junkfood and has eliminated it from public schools altogether. unfortunately it's also being passed on to the rest of the world. it simply is not a good way of eating, save in moderation, and that's even questionable ... but there are so many folks who eat junkfood/fast food excessively, often because it's the most convenient choice.

clearly your example of the people choosing doesn't work in this case. junkfood and fastfood have dominated the market, and there is a strong propensity of people to be drawn to the food and, furthermore, be in relative denial about its negative effects. i don't think it's clear whether, in due time, the general populace will make the right choice and change this in the future. but what is clear is that the companies KNOW damn well that their food is detrimental to society. but since they are within their legal means, they could care less, and few people seem to feel that it's appropriate to hold them accountable.

what is your opinion on this.

[Sombeech]

I know the weaknesses are being exploited, and I hate them for that. I still get a craving just by driving by a gas station, and my tank is still full.

The only thing I can do is discipline myself to eat better. We need to train ourselves to be "internally" triggered to eat, and not externally. (learned that from psychology)

My self discipline won't bring down the junk food companies, and I'm not sure if anything will. But my life and health will improve from it, and I've accepted the fact that this may be good enough for me. It would be nice if everybody could stop eating junk, that would really put them out of business. But this won't happen, and I don't know if it's the government's duty to keep them in check when our self discipline fails.

It sounds like a nice concept for the gov't to help us out, but at the end of the day, it just means that the gov't is more influential in our lives. We want less of that. I'm afraid we would be more dependant on the gov't to assist us, and that would weaken us in the end.

If I started riding my bike more, rather than buy gasoline, I think I would benefit. It wouldn't bring them into bankruptcy, but if my life improves from weening away from oil, that might be all I need.

[derstuka]

The thing is that most people (generally speaking) are too stupid to know what is best for themselves sometimes. I do not agree with a fastfood tax, but these politicians are grasping at straws (and votes) for what to do for idiots that do not know what is best for themselves and are taxing the healthcare system. It is your own god-given right to eat and buy what you want, but do not come crying about how unhealthy and fat that you are. Then the same thing happens when all of these people are buying gas guzzlers, and then bitch about how much that they now spend for gas. This lady at work just bought a Dodger Charger (with a Hemi) and I already have heard her complaining about how much she has to spend on gas on it.

Most people are just like sheep, and they are too dumb to realize "if we all start buying less, this will stick it to big oil/business to change more than anything else!" Just as soon as that price drops, they are back in the ole saddle again.

Toyota & Honda are good examples of companies that are trying to offer some products which are better for the environment, whether than means better on gas, less pollution, or both. Many of the other auto companies are trying to follow suit, but only after having their arms twisted...yet they are still coming out and offering 400 horsepower new models because they flat out do not care, there is demand and somebody out there is gullible enough to buy it for their daily driver.

Like I said twelve times already, most people are too stupid to think for themselves...somebody has to slap them in the face with reality and do their thinking for them.

[price1869]

Hooray Capitalism!!!!!! :flag: :flag: :flag: