Shared publicly  - 
Starting soon: President Obama speaks on American energy and gas prices at Prince George's Community College. Watch the speech live on Google+.
chuan dai's profile photoScodal Alex's profile photoYu-Jen Chang's profile photoandrew chapman's profile photo
jun jun is so stupid wtf {} {} {} {} mean?
+丁松 我谈论奥巴马总统对美国的能源和天然气价格的讲话。
Kaka Li
what about bio fuels, maybe one that can produce more ethanol than corn...hemp?
+Edward Coles: Hemp isn't that greasy. Not compared to soy or algae. Though that doesn't ultimately solve the problem of using less energy to accomplish the same task. Reducing the number of motor vehicles on the road does. That can be accomplished by giving people more transportation options that are convenient.
And how do the millions of Americans that can't find jobs buy these 55mpg cars? How do kids buy these cars?
If you want to know how much oil is in the U.S. Google "unknown oil reserves" and then compare those numbers with "known oil reserves".
The truth shall set you free! lol
+Paul Johnson im down for any better way but hemp seeds are 40% oil and can be made into blends of 10-15% ethanol. It can produce 10 times more methanol than corn.
+Dan Gumm: I wouldn't trust unknown oil reserve numbers too much, given that they're based mostly on pulling numbers out of of tailholes and seeing what sticks.
Well the unknowns in Canada are producing millions of barrels. The only thing I trust is that most of what the media shares is propaganda and I do a lot of in depth research to form my opinions. Google scholar give access to the real research being done on just about any topic.
thats a good question +Paul Johnson I would need to do more research, from what I have read though its more about the cellulose fibers. Ill have to follow up with this later since Im at work.
+Dan Gumm: Canada would rather sell that oil to China, and extracting oil from tarsands uses almost as much oil as it produces. The only oil we would have ever got from the Keystone XL pipeline is oil spilled in a pipeline disaster: Going from Alberta to an international shipping terminal in Texas means no new oil from Canada (which really makes me wonder whose side the Republicans are on for fighting for that so hard, given that Canada and China would reap all the benefit and we'd take all the risk).
+Nawong Gyaltsen: Yeah, those could use improvement, sure. But look at another two things government is involved in: The Interstate Highway System and the National Parks Service. America can, and should, strive for improvement rather than accepting mediocrity.
Thats what I thought, too. It doesnt look like it would create sustainable jobs, it would probably help to increase global warming ( if you believe in such a thing) and we would more than likely, just process the oil in texas and then sell it to a country that is willing to pay more for it than we are. Why dont we cut our current gas with ethanol grown here, that would create jobs that would sustain us, reduce pollution, and ween us off oil instead of shocking the system.
cheaper for them to sell it on this continent, but arnt we exporting more than we are importing now?
There is a solution to lowering gas prices, a quite simple one. There is plenty of oil on government lands however the government has chosen not to allow drilling on those lands. Thus the increase in oil production in the US is due to drilling on private land. So here is a “win-win” solution;

1. Open public lands to drilling but forbid any of the oil recovered from being exported.

2. The natural resources on public land belong to the people of the United States, therefore the government then collects 10 cents per gallon of oil recovered to be used only to pay down the national debt.

So how is this a “win-win”? If the oil companies refuse to go along with this concept, then the administration can “blame” the oil companies for high prices. If they go along with it, then we all win with a reduction of national debt and reduced prices in the future.

The biggest problem in this whole debate is that so many claim “drilling won’t reduce the price of oil for 10 years”. Perhaps that is true, but people need to stop being so short sighted. These excuses were used 10 years ago and look where we are today. Politicians need to stop kicking the can and take real action.
+Kevin Meidel: If we're going to use public land for oil, we need to nationalize an oil company. Otherwise, we're nationalizing the risk while some asshole walks away with all the gain.
Yeah because private companies are never held responsible for the damage they cause...
Free markets, folks. Free markets. Stop looking to government for solutions that they created in the first place.
+Paul Johnson : Obviously you did not comprehend what I wrote. There is no need to nationalize the companies. Under the current land lease program, the US Government only gains by the cost of the lease. Under my concept, not only would they continue to get this amount, but would additionally gain 10 cents on every gallon of oil recovered. So 10 cents versus nothing, not a hard choice to make.
+s.bradford colson : There are no legal or trade requirements or limitations that a product produced in a country be required for export.

+Paul Johnson : Because I am not a socialist and believe in the free market system. Further, the "fee" gained by the government has to make sense. Too much and it negates the cost savings to drill rather than import, and thus would negate any savings to the consumer.
+Kevin Meidel: Right, my point is, when you're selling something, unless you just hate money or something, you sell to the highest bidder. Not the lowest. So, again, why short-sell our resources?
+Paul Johnson : There are 42 gallons per barrel of oil. At 10 cents per gallon, the government would gain $4.20 per barrel. To make the plan workable, you have to look at the cost per barrel to import. If the $4.20 per barrel exceeds the cost of the same barrel imported, it does not work. That would make the cost per barrel higher, thus higher prices to the consumer. Currently oil companies make 5.6 cents per dollar of product sold. Apple on the other hand makes 22.4 cents per dollar of product sold. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Yeah, and with oil at $105/bbl, getting $4.20 for it is a shit deal. You're proposing a bad deal given that we're talking about our land and it's resources here, not some gadget pumped out on a factory line. Gas stations make 5.6 cents, oil companies make closer to 70 cents on the gallon.
+Paul Johnson : Sorry your "facts" are wrong. Please provide a single reliable (i.e. not some anti-business website) to support your claim. Further you fail to grasp the reality that under the current system, the government gets nothing for the actual oil recovered. For your information, gas stations make just under 5 cents PER GALLON of fuel sold. I trust you understand the difference between "per dollar sold" and "per gallon sold".
Sure, +Kevin Meidel. Look up the SEC filings of any publicly traded oil company. Take their revenue from oil sales, subtract cost of exploration, divide by number of gallons, you get earnings per gallon. There, you're getting what they're earning straight from the oil companies themselves.
+Paul Johnson : Actually unlike you, I have looked up the numbers to support my claims. Once again you fail to understand what I clearly stated as their profit "per dollar sold". At the currently national average price per gallon of $4.29, oil companies are making 24.04 cents per gallon. A far cry from your claim of 70 cents per gallon.

And further for your edification, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1 barrel of crude oil makes about 17 gallons of gasoline, 12 gallons of gasoil, 7 gallons of jet fuel or kerosene, while lubricants, light naphtha and asphalt makes up the rest.
Regardless of where we drill, the source is not infinite. We need a sustainable source for fuel. Wind, Solar, Biofuels. Thats the point that he is making in the video.
Scotty’s (strike that), Obama’s on F-I-R-E! Nice speech!
how long can us fossil fuels last? how long can we support ourselves on something that cannot be renewed?
Dear Mr. President:
Wouldn't market forces naturally transition us to less expensive/ healthier energies options when prices reflect their total true costs (e.g. coal prices accounted for health/ environmental damage, gasoline prices accounted for military/ diplomatic efforts to maintain stable supplies, nuclear energy costs accounted for thousands of years of waste management and that one disaster clean-up, etc.)? Carbon emission is only one of many cost factors. Renewable energy will naturally become cost competitive when the old energy prices accounted for their true total costs of doing business.
+s.bradford colson lets save some time and you just tell me who you will accept facts from. Btw,
krauthammer may look and act like frankenstein, but he knows his stuff
Add a comment...