conoco should be closed for this.

[cj hall]

hello to all

i can not think this was a good idea from from any oil company,

we need biofuels we want biofuel we all must work for biofuel the only way for us to get it is have the govt make the oil companys do it if they just let them do what they want we get nothing or the same old same old.



from this time on i will not buy anything from conoco . i will push my truck to a different fuel pump if i have to (lucky for me i dont buy much any way)



this is the same B. S. from conoco.



Date (01. 25. 07)





The Future of Energy Security, Renewable Fuels and Climate Change

Like many of you, ConocoPhillips employees watched President Bush's State of the Union address with interest. Because we share a common interest in energy-related issues, we wanted to provide our views on the portions of the President's speech that concern our business.



The President touched on three general areas related to our industry - energy security, renewable fuels and climate change.



Energy Security



While ConocoPhillips disagrees that energy independence is a realistic goal for the United States, we wholeheartedly agree with and strongly encourage diversification of energy sources to provide a more secure energy supply to America. Oil, natural gas and coal will be vital components of energy supply for the foreseeable future, but many other sources are needed, including renewable fuels and wind, solar, nuclear and other alternative sources. ConocoPhillips is working to develop all energy sources, from conventional oil and natural gas and unconventional sources like tar sands, to alternative supplies of energy and renewable sources of transportation fuels.



But these efforts only hit the supply side of the equation. Demand needs an overhaul as well if we are to truly provide a meaningful, lasting energy policy for America. In his speech, the President called for reforming Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and extending the current light-truck rule. ConocoPhillips agrees that this approach is one part of the solution and believes that this and other efficiency-minded actions by government, manufacturers and consumers are needed to reduce demand.



Alternatives and Renewables



Biofuels received detailed attention in the President's address. Specifically, he proposed increasing the renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandate from the current 7. 5 billion gallons per year to 35 billion gallons per year by 2017. Much of this is anticipated to be achieved through increased use of ethanol. ConocoPhillips is one of the country's larger blenders of ethanol, but we are disappointed that an increased mandate has been proposed. The fuels market is already moving in the direction of blending more ethanol and we don't believe a mandate is required. In general, we believe that the interests of consumers and taxpayers are best served when the usage of any product - such as ethanol - is determined by demand from the marketplace. It's also important to point out that significant technological breakthroughs will be required to provide the full volumes of renewable fuels in the Administration's proposal at a reasonable cost to consumers. Finally, an increased mandate may also suppress the growth of other fuel alternatives.



ConocoPhillips believes that alternatives and renewables hold much promise as a reliable option for American consumers, as well as consumers all over the world. We are working to develop a variety of technologies to bring renewable fuels to market for the nation's consumers. Already, we have begun production of diesel fuel from vegetable oil in Ireland, and we are working to make similar projects a reality in the U. S. very soon. In addition, we are looking at how we can use biomass such as cornstalks and fast-growing crops like switchgrass to further supplement fuel supplies.



We also are pursuing partnerships with universities where we can sponsor energy-related research. In 2007, we expect to enter into several multi-year, multi-million dollar biofuels research agreements with major universities around the U. S. and the world.



Climate Change



ConocoPhillips believes the issue of climate change requires serious attention. Several proposals have been introduced in Congress, and the President's goal of a reduction of 175 million tons of CO2 by 2017 is a serious one. We are committed to taking action now to address the issue, and we are working toward an approach within our own operations that builds through slow, stop and reverse phases. We welcome the opportunity to work with lawmakers and the Administration to develop a practical program that balances two goals: the goal of achieving real reductions of CO2 and other greenhouse emissions harmful to the environment, along with the goal of maintaining strong growth within the nation's economy.

If you were forwarded this message and would like to receive future emails regarding energy issues, please click here.



You are receiving this message because you have expressed an interest in energy issues. To be removed from this list, please click here.



Media Coverage

Full Text Speech



Twenty in Ten: Strengthening America's Energy Security



New York Times

"Bush Makes Sales Pitch for Proposal on Energy"



MSNBC

"Calif. : Bush Energy Plan Could Raise CO2 Levels"



White House Press Release

"President Bush Discusses Energy Initiative"



PBS

"President Bush Proposes New Energy Initiatives"



The Huffington Post

"Considering the Real Costs of Our Energy Economy"



Please let us know what you think of the President's energy priorities by clicking here to join the discussion.



Continuing Conversation

We look forward to continuing this dialogue through our Conversation on Energy, a public outreach program to stimulate discussion among Americans about energy solutions that are secure, reliable, cost effective and environmentally responsible. Learn more here.





While ConocoPhillips disagrees that energy independence is a realistic goal for the United States, we wholeheartedly agree with and strongly encourage diversification of energy sources to provide a more secure energy supply to America. Oil, natural gas and coal will be vital components of energy supply for the foreseeable future, but many other sources are needed, including renewable fuels and wind, solar, nuclear and other alternative sources.



we are running out of oil and nat gas they told us this ???????

nuclear no way this is not a good idea what are they thinking!!!!!!!!



ConocoPhillips is working to develop all energy sources, from conventional oil and natural gas and unconventional sources like tar sands, to alternative supplies of energy and renewable sources of transportation fuels.

stop buying from this conpany show them we dont like what they are saying

this was emailed to me from conoco

cj hall

 

[tgordon]

Hey, if nuclear is such is good idea sounds like we have aa offer of place to put the byproducts LOL.

 

[CRuth]

If you can push your truck, you must be pretty dang strong

 

[TAbbott]

Sounds like its all pretty straightforward to me. Addressing supply, demand, alernatives and renewables along with safe, clean nuclear energy makes sense. What doesn't make sense is a frantic, knee-jerk, reactionary response to a reasoned argument. The aftermath of 9-11 was nothing --- make that less than nothing --- compared to what would happen to our society if we actually did run out of energy. It just wasn't available at any price. Things around here would look a lot like Baghdad in pretty short order.

 

[cj hall]

conoco

we dont need to refine veg oil at all !!!!!!!!!!



why are we letting the oil companys and the bio diesel makers (the middle men) telling us what we need to do as far as what type of fuel we need.



give me a farmer, an oil seed crop, a expeller and some time and i will show you a renewable fuel that works better than the ulsd they make as a fuel today. with a byproduct that can be used as an feed stock. cant do that with any thing the oil conpany wants to use!



we can grow more product we can grow more than we need. THE AMERICAN FARMER is our ticket out of this mess we have gotten in to , but if we let the middle men run it then what we will have is nothing better then what we have right now. high prices and companys making more money and the end users going broke same old,same old. and the farmers going broke taking the price for there product they should set the price.



i found 450 acres of canola seed sitting in bins within 100 miles of my house the farmer does not have any idea what to charge for it why? he grew it he should know what he needs to make it worth his time. problem is he is a price taker not a price maker. yes he is thinking of making it in to vegoil and he did not think he could feed the by product to cattle after its been crushed.

oil for this year's fuel and cattle feed out of one product.





safe, clean nuclear energy



what is this, do you read, look at the history of nuclear energy clean and safe.

i dont think so.



cj hall

 

[Bachant]

Nuclear energy is safe until something goes wrong. There are hundreds of nuclear plants arond the world and there has only been 2 major problems. If it isn't safe they wouldn't use nuclear power to power over half of our naval fleet.

 

[RustyJC]

The "greens" need to step back and rethink nuclear power.



1. Nuclear power is NOT carbon-based. Therefore, it emits no greenhouse gases and does not contribute to global warming.



2. More nuclear power would reduce the demands on our hydrocarbon resources. This would make more oil, natural gas and coal available for our other hydrocarbon-based requirements such as fuels, lubricants, etc.



3. The best non-carbon-based source of hydrogen (which doesn't exist on earth as a free element - H2) is electrolysis of water. Electrolysis requires electrical power. If the electrical power necessary to produce enough hydrogen is going to be "green" (in the sense that it cannot be carbon based due to global warming concerns), then that pretty well leaves hydro, wind, wave, solar and nuclear. So, if you want hydrogen-powered fuel cells and/or internal combustion engines, by necessity nuclear is going to be part of the equation.



Rusty

 

[Alphacowboy]

way to go conoco! I praise you! Bio-Fuels are not the answer. Its rediculas, the push for Bio-Fuels has pushed the cost of grain so high that some poor countries can even buy it for thier people to EAT! This push for bio stuff is going to bite us in the *** if you ask me. Plop more drills in the gulf and alaska, problem fixed.





And yes, Nuclear power is perfectly safe... . there has been two major disasters involving nuclear power so it got a bad name due to 2 incidents of lazy poor management of a power plant. I know a couple people that work at the nuclear plants here in Minnesota, and laugh at people when they ask them if they are worried about going to work there.

 

[Diesel Gunner]

If it takes more than 1 gallon of petroleum to produce 1 gallon of "Bio" then that is not the answer. It is corporate welfare for ADM.



The ones that have been holding us hostage for the last 30 years on this issue are the eco-terrorists here. We have saved many spotted fleas, three tongued galoops, and fairy whatevers. And, we are paying for it at the pumps, all the while the dollars are flowing into the pockets of ADM and others like those in the Middle East who are set on killing us all.



JMHO and not intended in the least to slight anyone else's opinions.



May all of those who drive 85 in the commuter lane in their Prius beware.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Has anyone calculated the energy required to produce 1 gallon of biodiesel, taking in the required energy to prepare and plant the soil, grow and harvest the product, refine it into oil, then process it into biodiesel? I heard when you do the math on ethanol you almost come up in the negative.



Making bio out of WVO takes energy resources as well, and of course the supply is quite finite. . . you can't make an appreciable impact on the diesel market.



I am glad nuclear power is being looked at again . . . it's about time. Not only could it help replace a lot of coal plants, but it could power ocean-going freighters since the application would be relatively simple. Even though you can move 1 ton of freight about 500 miles per gallon of fuel (compared to about 200 for rail and 60 for trucks), it still takes nearly a million gallons to get one freighter one way across the Pacific.

 

[cj hall]

think about it

it would only take one year supply of fuel to grow the next years supply of oil

lets not make it in to biodiesel lets crush it making it oil and cattle /pig/ feed

i dont think the way to go is biodiesel what i would like to see is running svo heat it up and burn it , this is what we need to do. the american farmer will grow it and the american people will burn it. the oil companys will not control it.



as far as nuclear power if thats what you want then is it ok to put it in your back yard?



be careful what you wish for !!!!!!



cj hall

 

[steved]

The "greens" need to step back and rethink nuclear power.



1. Nuclear power is NOT carbon-based. Therefore, it emits no greenhouse gases and does not contribute to global warming.



Rusty

I will only counter this, nuclear DOES contribute to global warming. It is one of the largest thermal polluters known (as direct heat from cooling towers, not from gases).



And one problem with nuclear fuel is the radioactive waste that is generated when the fuel rods are spent...



But overall, nuclear is actually much better...



steved

 

[TJJEEPER]

Actually there is a very simple answer...

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

We need to form
OFEC Organization of Food Exporting Countries

Tie the cost of food to the cost of oil... how many crops do you see in the middle east?

Problem solved.

 

[steved]

Actually there is a very simple answer...



OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries



We need to form

OFEC Organization of Food Exporting Countries



Tie the cost of food to the cost of oil... how many crops do you see in the middle east?



Problem solved.

Or water... they use large desalinization plants... that require a lot of money to maintain!!!



steved

 

[Loghead]

CJ,

I ,for one, appreciate how you've chronicled you're own personal experimentation with alternative fuel. You've managed to tinker and tune your truck(s) so you can feel some confidence in veg-oil. That's great; for you.

Conoco, or any other energy company, cannot simply say to consumers that they should buy veg-oil from them (in any stage of refinement) for use in their vehicles. Unlike yourself, Conoco would be on the hook for fuel system failures whenever they occur.

Bio-diesel is a product that at least has some verifiable feedback data (from Europe) , giving Conoco some confidence that this stuff won't leave them liable for damaged fuel systems (and who knows what else).

Contrary to your plan of action, I think Conoco should be commended and encouraged.

Nuclear power scares certain people because they're afraid of the unknown goblins associated with leakage and spent fuel disposal. Have you ever seen someone with black lung, lung cancer, or any of the other diseases known to be associated with the harvest and burning of fossil fuel? Or does that not bother you as much because it's a known quantity?



I've worked in and around nuclear powered vessels my entire adult life, and I'll say that I have complete confidence in them.

If those hand-wringing French wussies can successfully utilize nuclear power, then we should be able to do it.

It can't be any more hazardous than sending some of our best and brightest young men and women to get shot at in the desert; spending ungodly amounts of time away from their families and sometimes coming home zipped in a bag.



Go ahead and push your truck (don't expect the rest of us to push ours); push it all the way home and sit in the dark and cold, for that is the fate that you'll impose on your countrymen if companies like Conoco are punished for not parroting your politically correct (and personally convenient) line.

 

[RustyJC]

I will only counter this, nuclear DOES contribute to global warming. It is one of the largest thermal polluters known (as direct heat from cooling towers, not from gases).

No more thermal pollution from nuclear than from any other steam-powered plant (coal, oil, etc. ). In each case, heat is used to generate steam which drives steam turbines which drive generators. All that differs is the source of heat, and nuclear (as I said) does not generate greenhouse gases in the production of the heat.



Rusty

 

[cj hall]

its not about oil

this is not about oil or war or religon

this is about nuclear engery and that its not that safe sure we can make it work yes it might be safe just ask the people at three mile island or in ussr about the safety of that power.



as far as my use of wvo i will say its not for everbody but i have only had to mod my truck a little to make it work. the lift pump went out the first time when it was running diesel not waste veg oil the next time it went out it was running blend fuel / and the last thing is the tank heater the only reason i did that is to run the veg oil in the winter time. really no other mods have taken place to run this blend.



most real diesels the over the road trucks have tank heaters in them the fuel makes better power at 80degs than it does at -20 below this is why you can find heaters all day long that stop heating at 80 degs.



i am not telling conoco to sell veg oil what i am saying is they need to stop pushing for some thing that will only free up the supply of crude oil some they can refine it and sell it to the public at 100 % profit.

if you look at all the ways they are pushing all of them are from crude oil

we are paying way to much for fuel and they are making tons of money.



also if you think the new fuel that they are making is not hard on the fuel systems think again . go ask any diesel tech he/she will give you a wakeup on that. They will just say (conoco) its not the problem of the fuel its the MFG of the truck they will tell you its the maker of the pump or injectors,fuel station or it you for some thing that just makes no sence.



THIS PROBLEM IS CAUSED BY THE LACK OF PEOPLE TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIER SELFS



if i break it i will fix it at my cost.



cj hall

 

[RustyJC]

this is not about oil or war or religon

this is about nuclear engery and that its not that safe sure we can make it work yes it might be safe just ask the people at three mile island or in ussr about the safety of that power.

To be fair, would you like to cite the number of individuals who have been killed or injured in explosions, fires, etc. associated with coal, oil and/or natural gas production, refining, transportation/distribution and marketing??



Nuclear power is a convenient hobgoblin - as I said, an objective rethink is certainly warranted.



Rusty

 

[steved]

I know from a publication I read once:



Workers killed in all aspects of the coal industry was estimated at 25,000 per year (for just coal, not including oil).



Workers killed in all aspects of Nuclear energy was under 50 per year killed.



I believe this is partly due to the tighter regulations on nuclear energy versus coal industry. Ohh, and these numbers were from all accidents including those killed during mining to those killed at the power plants. It was an incredible difference to actually read in print.



The only thing that is worse is when a nuclear plant has a problem, it causes a lot more than power interruption...



steved

 

[RustyJC]

How safe is a U. S. nuclear power plant? Let's take one example - power for the cooling water system for the nuclear reactor.



1. In normal operation, the cooling water pumps are powered by the internal power generated within the nuclear power plant.



2. In case of emergency, the cooling water pumps can draw power from the external power grid.



3. The third line of defense is the standby diesel gensets that are specifically designed for nuclear service. There are 2 of these gensets per reactor, and both would start and load within 10 seconds from the time of loss of external power (2. above), even though only 1 genset is required to power the nuclear plant's emergency loads.



That's more than triple redundancy.



Rusty