Speakeasy forum: No cookies for BP

We either import more to fuel our navy or we spend $26 per barrel for God knows how long for that infamous biofuel that is already deemed inefficient and another huge waste of taxpayer money. Massive cutbacks for our military in all departments, and then spend what's left on crap like this...........

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly

http://www.examiner.com/article/26-per-gallon-green-fuel-costs-for-u-s-navy-are-the-new-400-toilet-seats

We have a freaking leprechaun for a president he's so green, and as long as his agenda moves forward, who cares about REAL national security.

...technology, and how it develops over time. I suggest you have a chat with a chemical engineer, or perhaps someone with a lot of experience in the oil & gas industry before posting more drivel.

At one point, when we were using coal to power ships, we subsidized such developments to switch to oil. This is no different. If at some point it can become more cost effective to product fuel from algae/seawater, then we will at least have researched it properly. Keep in mind that many military officials have asked for some of these cutbacks. Keep up with the literature and you may actually be informed.

Of course, politicians such as McCain will be vocal critics of any sort of green alternatives since he is owned by big oil.

While the EPA didn't say how long the ban would last, suspensions generally don't exceed 18 months or until the end of legal proceedings.

Green BO means BAN and it will stay that way until he's gone and somebody else comes down the pike to lift it.

We have "government speak" AND we also have "Toni speak"

Which is closer to the truth?

BP is still doing business with the Government...Just no new contracts.....IF it was a "Total Ban of BP" ...as opposed to a "ban, temporary ban, suspension of NEW contracts"

THEN your argument MIGHT hold some water.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

And yet they are still having bids on NEW Contacts?

For What purpose?

with our government drastically cutting our military and national security

The report showed continued strength in homebuilding, which rose at an annual rate of 14.2 percent. And government spending expanded at an annual rate 3.5 percent, marking its first positive contribution to overall economic growth in two years. The increase was driven by a big jump in defense spending.

Link provided upon request.

The report showed continued strength in homebuilding, which rose at an annual rate of 14.2 percent. And government spending expanded at an annual rate 3.5 percent, marking its first positive contribution to overall economic growth in two years. The increase was driven by a big jump in defense spending.

Defense spending, meanwhile, surged nearly 13% in the third quarter after falling in the prior three quarters. Military spending is usually more spread out and such gains cannot expect to be repeated. Defense accounted for 0.6 percentage points of third-quarter growth.

RE:that your other post just reported as being voted on to restrict it now.

YES...You're right............ It WAS voted on..and REJECTED, Restrictions on biofuels were rejected....So biofuels are OK.

PLUS all the mechanics involved in converting engines, etc. to accommodate it.

NOW you have a problem with defense spending?

A job is a job? or only military jobs count?

At least the senate isn't full of as many dolts as the house and can think in the longer term.

Without a shred of doubt, biofuels will have some impact on future energy usage. It is a matter of how and when, not a matter of if anymore, regardless of how much shale gas will be produced on such large scale.