Did you know that sugar beets can yield 1200 gallons of alcohol per acre where corn yields 1/4 that much. If we want to have enough oil type products we need to be willing to look for alternatives. Google David Bloom, he was on the radio giving many types of alternatives that we aren't taking advantage of.

High oil prices raise price of roads??? duh!!!!

Luckily for UDOT, traffic in utah is declining. They reported it themselves yesterday. This means they will be able to abandon all new road building and existing road expansion projects that are not already underway. This will save a lot of expensive asphalt, as well as motor fuel.
If the worlds fuel supply has stopped growing, which it has, this means traffic must neccessarily stop growing as well.

Just one more reason to nationalize oil companies and to stop building roads.

Double the cost in 6 months? Its time folks to rid ourselves of every single incumbent in political office. These people have apparently lost their ability to govern our counties, state and federal government. Get rid of all of them and lets see what new blood can do. Its up to you as voters starting in 3 or 4 months to start these needed changes so quit complaing and go out and vote.

You can thank the energy pals of the Cheney/Bush corporation for this.

Yep, all we have to do is identify and burn the right group of witches and everything will be OK.

Oil was cheap and easy to get so we got in the habit of using lots and lots. The easy stuff is now gone, the hard stuff remains. It will come out slowly and at great expense.
The price of oil is a component of the price of almost everything you can buy. This means everything will cost more. Your wages will not increase to compensate. The sensible response to this is to reduce your energy dependence, reduce your debt, and learn as much about frugal self reliant living as you can. Some understand this already and the rest will learn the hard way later.

Wen can look directly at the Lib Democrat/Eco terrorists for this. No new refineries translates into limited production of products. No drilling in know oil deposits translates into higher cost and mopre dependance on forgien sources.

No!!! Nationalization is NOT the answer. Can you name ONE thing that the government doesn't screw up when it gets involved?

Free markets are the way to go.

We need to:

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Sooooo .... if we are looking for the right witch to burn, are we going weigh her against a duck or build a bridge out of her? .... I'm going to get a duck!

Some of you posters, who like to blame the price of oil on politicians, will be sadly awakened some day when you learn the cause was different. Maybe after you're broke, living in your suv, parked on an empty freeway.

The rising price of oil is just a factor in planning new and repaired roadways. Higher asphalt price = less asphalt = more mass transit. The Wasatch Front cities are positioned pretty well for existing and planned rail transit.

Time to stop ever widening and ever lengthening the freeways to accomodate the masses of cars. A bicycle takes a lot less roadway. Rail doesn't take any asphalt. Busses move many more people per mile of asphalt. Time for a new paradigm.

But don't stop whipping the politicians, just get better reasons, there are plenty.

We can blame the neocons for this. The liberal Democrats have been trying to sound the alarm for a couple of decades now, only to fall on the deaf ears of conservatives who would rather play their stupid partisan games than try to improve or change anything for the future of our children.

Do the "Lib Democrat/Eco terrorists" have tall pointy hats and ride on brooms? We need to examine every clue in this witch hunt. Wouldn't want to burn the wrong ones.

When you speak of the Lib Democrats it would help if you had a little more education and would have applied yourself more in your spelling classes. You conservative Repubs kill me with your weak excuses. Who has been running this country for the last 8 years and until 2 years ago controlled the house and senate. What has your party done for you and the rest of us for this past 16 years? Please put your weak blame where it belongs--your republican party and their lobbyists. Clinton had to fight you people tooth and nail for 8 years but was able to balance the books, what has Georgie boy and Darth Vader done?

The modern American conservative movement that supports the filty rich getting richer, torture and the shock-and aweing of civilians in a sovereign country is filled with the most vile, blood-thirsty people this country has ever seen since the McCarty era.

These people most likely don't realize how evil they have become and don't seem to care.

commenter at 9:56-"Sooooo .... if we are looking for the right witch to burn, are we going weigh her against a duck or build a bridge out of her? .... I'm going to get a duck!"

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Let's face it: the policies in place since Clinton (and many from well before him) haven't been eradicated by Bush, leading to our problem. Oil is taxed at a ridiculous rate, the government makes it very difficult for companies to drill, so when the GLOBAL oil market responds to increased demand from industrializing countries like China and India, of course we see a ridiculous increase in prices! There are solutions, but they all require government to get out of the way and let us drill in environmentally safe ways, set up more nuclear power plants, etc. Until we do that, we will continue to see increased prices on everything because we have an oil-driven economy. Our freedom and economy depend in large degree on our oil access. This isn't going to change overnight, fellas, so you might as well get over a quick switch to alternative fuels as the answer. It will take decades. Yes, we can do it, but we need oil in the meantime, and we need economic growth to promote the research for alternatives. Look carefully at what your congressmen say vs what they do this November.

"The liberal Democrats have been trying to sound the alarm for a couple of decades now, only to fall on the deaf ears of conservatives..."

That's odd...I don't recall the "liberal Democrats" getting anything accomplished in this area when they were in charge and controlled Congress.

Every time Congress presents something that might help - Dubya vetoes it.
It hurts his business pals who are enjoying windfall profits and being insanely rich.

I am Arthur, King of the Britons. & Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.

--Our chant--
"Drill here.. Drill now.. pay less.."

--Gas company chant--
"Drill here.. Drill now.. raise profit margin!.."

--Reality--
"Drill here.. Drill now.. pay the same.."

How the [bleep] will drilling for oil 10 long years from now going to alleviate the out-of-control disaster we are in now?

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR bill, there would be a million more barrels a day in the global oil supply right now.

And they still don't seem to get it. When the dems took Congress gas was $2.50/gal and they promised that voting out the Republicans would lower it back to pre-2002 levels.

Instead, they are refusing to increase the supply by obstructing drilling off the coasts and raising taxes on oil companies--taxes that will be passed on to you, the consumer.

Bush's approval rating is in the dumps, but Congress' ratings isn't any better. When Americans figure out who is really to blame for high prices, there's going to be a bloodletting. Unfortunately there will probably be a lot of leftist economic experimentation first that could take decades to undo.

To the commentator at 12:53 PM:

I don't understand why "it takes ten years" is relevant to the discussion. Did a lot of Democrats suddenly become terminally ill or something?

I plan on being here in ten years from now, and that's why I want the drilling to begin immediately. Especially since demand from China and India is about to double, the North Sea reserves will be mostly depleted in another decade, and Russian production is already in decline. As for OPEC, Saudi Arabia is the only member that is not presently running at full capacity.

If there is a not a large increase in capitalization in the world's oil production immediately, there's going to be a national emergency in our future.

The fact that Reid and Pelosi fail to grasp this concept is evidence of a leadership crisis. I'm sad to admit that if the electorate of this country thinks "hope" and "change" and doing nothing to meet the coming crisis because it might mar somebody's coastal scenery, we deserve what follows.

I support opening ANWR and the OCS for exploration and production. At the rate existing fields are depleting, that oil coming online in ten years may determine whether running our garbage pickup, mail delivery, and public bus sytems are still possible. Mass automobility will still be toast. It really is that bad.

I wrote an editorial about this a few weeks ago that was published in this newspaper.

The solution is simpler and quicker than changing leadership and political mindsets, etc., etc.

Pave in concrete. It lasts 5 times as long and costs less relative to asphalt.

And to those who think that lowered road usage will ease the cost burden on taxpayers (I think the logic is that less cars = less wear), you are not considering the shortfalls that will occur from less taxes.

However, "paying it all upfront" now by paving in concrete will mean that the road may last 25-40 years before another tax dollar has to be spent repaving the road. That means the reduced tax income will at least be able to stay in the coffers longer, so concrete will solve the problem on both fronts (more durable = less wear. Longer lasting = better spent tax dollars in tight markets).

It also seems to me the refineries could care less about producing asphalt as it seems they want to cut back so they can produce other products. So it's a win for everyone.

By demonstrating our resolve to find oil, this will send a clear message to the futures traders that supply will be increasing, albeit the future. They in turn will bid the price of a barrel of oil down NOW, in anticipation of that condition. Hence, we get cheaper prices at the pump now, rather than later.

Well, as I remember. Demos had the majority in congress for 40 years, except in '94. And then they have it again since '03.

If I have to point fingers, I have to point at the demos. What have they done? What are they doing now? Nada. Grandma Paloosy, says, drilling is a hoax. What planet is she and Reid living on?

Whenever Democrats present anything resembling progress and/or change The President vetoes the bill while protecting the special interests he represents - namely oil, and defense contracting.

"Whenever Democrats present anything resembling progress and/or change The President vetoes the bill while protecting the special interests he represents - namely oil, and defense contracting."

I'm only aware of a few strategies Democrats have come up regarding "alternative" policies on energy:

(1) Raising taxes on the oil industry (taxes that are then passed on to you). That also makes foreign oil cheaper relative to domestic oil, enlarges the trade deficit, and weakens the dollar.

(2) The ethanol mandate (that is, increasing the cost of your food). We eat too much anyway.

(3) Banning the import of oil from the Alberta tar sands. (because it releases more CO2 than conventional drilling, a no-no under the Dem's latest No Energy Policy).

(4) Obstructing development of domestic energy. Why keep money at home when you can buy oil from terrorists instead?

Soon we'll have mandatory CO2 cap-and-trade fees because $4.10/gal clearly isn't expensive enough for the Al Gore wing of the Democratic party. Polar bears gotta live too.

Dems have been blaming Bush (because of his personal connection to the industry) but the facts are that current democratic party energy policy is creating a disaster. When the voter figures this out...

"G" has got to be kidding!
Or has mistaken the general American populous for chumps.

George Bush made campaign promises in 2000 to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, in 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket." Lately, the White House has even questioned the validity of the science behind global warming, and claims that millions of jobs will be lost if the US joins in this world pact.

The post at 4:42 has proven my point: Dems plan to raise the cost of energy further. $4/gallon isn't expensive enough for at least one prominent branch of the Democratic party. They think we need to pay "sin taxes" or institute cap-and-trade (rationing) systems on gasoline and other fossil fuels to ameliorate global warming.

Seriously, which side is it that really believes the voters are "chumps"?

Maybe we should take a moment to remember that the last time the issue was seriously considered in the US, the Kyoto Accord was rejected by the Senate by a margin of 99-0 and gasoline cost less than half of what it does now.

Various documentaries and ad campaigns have improved the image of global warming research in the public mind since then. But when voters find out that the entire plan is to make fossil fuels more expensive by including government calculated "external costs" like global warming in the cost that consumers are paying for it, there will eventually be a cost at the polls.

It amazes me that Pelosi and others can castigate Bush for energy prices and also believe that gasoline isn't expensive enough. But that's what they are selling.

are making a killing so why not tax them to fix the roads?

All of this conservative v liberal BS is great fun,
but in the end it will boil down to this:

Utah will remain the reddest state in America and vote straight R but who really gives a rat's [bleep] - It will be Obama by a record-breaking landslide in November.

Meanwhile, I can't wait for the debates.

While McCain will continue his weird habits of standing on his tip-toes and making that weird Joker-like grin of his, while Obama quietly, respectfully and graciously chews McCain up and spits him out.

Come November, America as we used to know it will be back!

Thank God!

"G" tells us "The post at 4:42 has proven my point"
The only point that has been proven is a landslide victory for Democrats in November.
Just like the landslide changes in both Houses recently.
Don't worry. Utah can still sit in its own peculiar world of Zion while the rest of the world passes it by.
It's just the way it is.

Taxing the oil companies to fix the roads is socialism.

"Just like the landslide changes in both Houses recently."

Yeah, and the Democrat-controlled Congress now has a single-digit approval rating, according to a Rasmussen report early this month. It is the lowest Congressional approval rating ever recorded.

I'm also looking forward to the debates. Obama is a great speaker but seems to have trouble in an unscripted environment. I think that the more exposure he has to McCain in front of the camera the more opportunity he has to come off as inexperienced and excessively idealistic. This is probably why he has refused to participate in the townhall meetings McCain invited him to. It's easier to talk about vague platitudes like "hope" and "change" than to give solid policy statements in front of your opponent's rebuke. This could be a trainwreck for Obama.

Either way, $10/gal gasoline is "CHANGE" that I don't want, and the electorate doesn't either. Dems have been promoting and feeding off the public perception of Bush=Big Oil for years. That's going to get tough when they are doing all they can to constrict supply. Four years of Jimmy Carter II is going to remind them of what it's like when dems are in charge.

Are a hoax as well. If you look at the total amount of money the oil companies invest in getting oil produced, further research, etc, their profit margins are MUCH smaller than almost any other kind of industry. Stop listening to Reid and Pelosi as if they know what they're talking about because they don't - do some research for yourself, please.

You people really scare me. Utah must have a dismal education system. Congress has a low approval rating so; it must indicate people hate democrats? There is no critical thought here.

When did this trend begin? This trend started before 2007 when democrats gained a slim lead. The last congressional election, a democrat beat a republican in Mississippi in a congressional district that Bush once carried by 18%. Democrats have won the last four congressional elections. We have the only person, who has been subject of negative approval ratting; he is Bush, a republican.

Could the low congressional approval be performance based? Democrats have been obstructed by the fact they need sixty votes to kill a filibuster and sixty-six votes to over ride a vote. Republicans are abandoning Bush and crossing over to over ride veto. Why if staying the course was a good career move?

If republicans loose in a landside this election, how will you spin it?

When I entered school in California from Utah I was near a year ahead. So, had a bias in favor of Utah schools.

A Harris poll asked this question.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"

On July the numbers were these. Twenty-five percent apporved, sixty-nine percent disaproved and six percent were unsure.

Another point here. I'm just sick of drive by politics of Fox News and others. I'm cynical about Obama too.

It's this jump on the band wagon group think that bother's me about many conservatives.

I'm a liberal Doing a little reading got me seeing there was no correlation between gun control and reduced crime.

I believe in balanced budgets.

If I hear logic, I don't care whose logic it is a hear. I read much conservative press.

Oil. Once Americans stepped up and solved problem using technology. Today, we say thing won't work. Lets try beats! I might be talked in to some high tech nuclear. I really believe technology can save resources.

I'm not leting Moveon define me. Why let Fox News define who you are?