Don't like our ELECTION REFORM, how about our energy proposal

They’re going to HATE our ideas on energy. I thought it’s time for a sneak preview of our affirmative action response.

(NOTE: in the last seven days since I’ve publicly released on the blogs our ELECTION REFORM initiative, my main server for WEB pages has come under attack at least four times. On two of those occasions every file in public directories has been sucked over to their machines. I take it as, we must be doing something right.)

We’ve been working on this energy proposal since Dec. in a think tank format. While we were unable to develop as good of a team in degree of expertise we put together for ELECTION REFORM, we were able to get a good start. We believe it is time to more fully develop strategies for alternative energy sources. It is clear that the energy companies are not going to do it. They are significantly more interested in keeping their investments in oil till maturity and have no interest in the damage they are causing to the environment. So our plan is simple: Just like ELECTION REFORM, we’re going to do it.

Our plan is to develop methane hydrate. This is the energy source of the future. Huge amounts of this energy source exist deep in the worlds oceans. Briefly, this is methane that is trapped in a lattice like structure and been building up for billions of years. If you took all the oil we’ve already burned and added to it all the known tapped and untapped reserves, you’d have a figure less than one two hundredth of the known deposits of methane hydrate. One single deposit alone off the Oregon/Washington coast, called methane ridge, contains more energy then we will need for the next hundred years.

This is not good from the oil company perspective. A virtually unlimited supply of clean burning, abundant, CHEAP energy source has them throwing water all over the idea and attempting various scare tactics to environmentalists and lawmakers like, it’s a green house gas, it’s a green house gas. While the Federal government has begun to look into the new source with a $22 million grant through the Energy Dept., their efforts are nothing less than disingenuous as the department is “embedded” with oil company execs. Well it is a green house gas but it’s a green house gas that burns at less than 10% of the pollutants. Similarly, they’re selling (successfully) the idea that it will take decades and numerous breakthroughs in technology to bear fruit. The fact is this is totally on the shelf technology to bring about production.

Their biggest problem other than eventually us, is Japan and Germany (and to some extent Canada is eyeballing methane ridge) have launched a full scale “look” into the possibilities of methane production and they aren’t playing the same game. They’re serious.

We initially looked into the idea of targeted buyouts of certain companies and gaining control of the management of the targeted companies and move them toward methane. It proved impossible as environmentalist or so called “green investors” wouldn’t have the resources (capital) to accomplish the mission. It would take tens of billions to pull it off in that manor and they don’t, by themselves, have that kind of capitol available. However they do have the tens of millions that it would take to get it off the ground as a standard type investment in new development corporations, followed by IPO’s. I won’t go into the economics of how this would work here as that is not in the purview of a political discussion board. I’ll just say it looks REAL good. In comparative BTU/dollar equivalencies, about a dollar a gallon at a significant profit looks attainable.

At this point, we believe, the longer the oil companies stay out of the investment the better. They’ll be in with both feet once they realize they’re about to be cut out of the new industry. We hope they stay out totally but that would be too good to be true. The green investors are going to solve this problem and get rich doing it. ANWR has pushed us over the edge. Soon, just as they’re going to wish they never heard of Karl Rove they’re going to wish they never heard of ANWR either. We simply haven’t got 30 more years of continued fossil fuels into the air. If we don’t choose this method, do it ourselves, we’ll be sitting around waiting like we’ve allowed with solar and wind with put offs, excuses and thirty more years of manipulation of the public’s good intensions.

(second NOTE: We are less than a month away from releasing our response to MSM and it’s looking very nice. Like I said during the Mecham recall, “the press came out stumbling all over itself to cover the recall cause they thought we were funny. They didn’t know we were serious as a heart attack.” (June 1986) This is the third of four issues we are initially taking on as viable options.)

Any links? Any way to get involved?

I'm Joe Vega and I'm on a mission from GOD. See Blues Brothers :')

But who are we: We are interblog.org (Nov 5, 2004) An off shoot of The Counsel for Government in Exile which I founded in 1986.

We are implementing a new concept to the Internet we call interblogging.
We are an aggressive, affirmative action, oriented blog as opposed to a discussion blog. Our theory is the Internet is in need of a more fruitful way of implementing the vast array of good ideas in the bloggesphere and on the WEB that disappear into nano dust when you turn off the machine. In short we need to establish cleaner methods of moving ideas on the net to real actions in the real world were changes actually occur off the net. We utilize what we call think tank modules were we put together six or so experts in various disciplines to delve into and solve problems with actions and recommendations.

We currently have four working modules, ELECTION REFORM, Energy, MSM, and progressive communications reform (interblog).