Should the US government develop oil fields in the US and not big business.

"Propane/methane gas, the cleanest burning gas known to the energy industry" Yes, I agree with this statement. It is the cleanest known the industry. But that does not make it clean, or clean enough. Just because one can say it is the best we have for the moment does not make it the best. "These vapors are then vacuumed into a condensing unit… to fill old abandoned Gilsonite mines." This is still dangerous. These containers filled with these gases cannot be completely reliable and could leak out these gases. Even if they did not leak these gases, the containers themselves would pollute the inside of the earth where companies suggest putting them. "The retort is a sealed unit, vacuum purged and environmentally friendly, with no toxic output… Minimal water is required for the process. Unlike most other designs, the retort does not require water for its operation." 1. I would like to know what they mean by "minimal" and other vague words such as "low in sulfur content". 3 barrels of water to 1 barrel of oil could seem like minimal to some, as I cited before. 2. After looking up the retort process, you seem to be correct that it would use less water. This is only, however, if Shell comes up with their version of in situ retorting as seen here: "Shell is working on an in situ retorting technology, in which the rock could be heated without being removed from the mountain. They claim to be able to produce oil at a cost of $30 per barrel, and in situ processing should reduce the environmental, energy, and water costs." They think they will have an idea if the project is economically feasible by 2010. If it is, then they will move forward with plans to discover if they can do this procedure. But this is costly but more importantly it would take time. If we really want to protect our environment, our time and energy would be better put into discovering an alternative instead of trying to buy time with what we have now, and then discovering an alternative. "I am not convinced that we are the cause, or more specifically, that automobiles are the cause… It is possible that coal burning for electricity contributes more, but I believe this greenhouse gas thing is again, big business, global economy and global tax driven." 1. These two arguments don't necessarily match up. Automobiles and electricity for buildings, while they don't necessarily use the same energy source (coal v. natural gas), both end up releasing CO2 into the air along with other greenhouse gases. 2. I also don't understand why you would think that the idea of greenhouse gases would be run by big businesses and the economy. What do they have to gain from this? Right now most businesses are dependent upon energy sources that release these gases. Finding out that these are harmful would not help them in any way. "give us the money to invest in cleaner technologies." This seems to be a paradox. You earn the money to create cleaner gases by using the harmful gases you're trying to combat? I understand again that it would be helpful to the economy, but other things we are doing (or not doing) would help our economy even more than this, such as ending funding for a war that is going nowhere. "would be increased capital to the government" I completely agree that it would help the economy. My concern ultimately, as I have stated, is that what is the point of a good economy for a short period of time if our habitat is destroyed in the long run? It has been a pleasure debating with you. You provide good viewpoints and back them up with good sources. I have learned a lot from this debate and I hope we debate again sometime. Sources: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov... http://www.eia.doe.gov... http://www.econbrowser.com...