View Full Version : Harold Hamm Interview in October 1-2 Wall Street Journal



OKCTalker
10-03-2011, 07:54 AM
This is the text of an interview with Harold Hamm, founder and CEO of Continental Resources, which appeared in the weekend (October 1-2, 2011) Wall Street Journal. He goes to great lengths to discuss restrictions on the energy industry which, if lifted, could have a huge, beneficial impact on OKC.

How North Dakota Became Saudi Arabia
Harold Hamm, discoverer of the Bakken fields of the northern Great Plains, on America's oil future and why OPEC's days are numbered.

By STEPHEN MOORE

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

"President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy," he adds. We can't come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into "green energy" sources like wind and solar, he argues. It has to come from oil and gas.

You'd expect an oilman to make the "drill, baby, drill" pitch. But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."

If he's right, that'll double America's proven oil reserves. "Bakken is almost twice as big as the oil reserve in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska," he continues. According to Department of Energy data, North Dakota is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years. Mr. Hamm explains over lunch in Washington, D.C., that the more his company drills, the more oil it finds. Continental Resources has seen its "proved reserves" of oil and natural gas (mostly in North Dakota) skyrocket to 421 million barrels this summer from 118 million barrels in 2006.

"We expect our reserves and production to triple over the next five years." And for those who think this oil find is only making Mr. Hamm rich, he notes that today in America "there are 10 million royalty owners across the country" who receive payments for the oil drilled on their land. "The wealth is being widely shared."

One reason for the renaissance has been OPEC's erosion of market power. "For nearly 50 years in this country nobody looked for oil here and drilling was in steady decline. Every time the domestic industry picked itself up, the Saudis would open the taps and drown us with cheap oil," he recalls. "They had unlimited production capacity, and company after company would go bust."

Today OPEC's market share is falling and no longer dictates the world price. This is huge, Mr. Hamm says. "Finally we have an opportunity to go out and explore for oil and drill without fear of price collapse." When OPEC was at its peak in the 1990s, the U.S. imported about two-thirds of its oil. Now we import less than half of it, and about 40% of what we do import comes from Mexico and Canada. That's why Mr. Hamm thinks North America can achieve oil independence.

The other reason for America's abundant supply of oil and natural gas has been the development of new drilling techniques. "Horizontal drilling" allows rigs to reach two miles into the ground and then spread horizontally by thousands of feet. Mr. Hamm was one of the pioneers of this method in the 1990s, and it has done for the oil industry what hydraulic fracturing has done for natural gas drilling in places like the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast. Both innovations have unlocked decades worth of new sources of domestic fossil fuels that previously couldn't be extracted at affordable cost.

Mr. Hamm's rags to riches success is the quintessential "only in America" story. He was the last of 13 kids, growing up in rural Oklahoma "the son of sharecroppers who never owned land." He didn't have money to go to college, so as a teenager he went to work in the oil fields and developed a passion. "I always wanted to find oil. It was always an irresistible calling."

He became a wildcat driller and his success rate became legendary in the industry. "People started to say I have ESP," he remarks. "I was fortunate, I guess. Next year it will be 45 years in the business."

Mr. Hamm ranks 33rd on the Forbes wealth list for America, but given the massive amount of oil that he owns, much still in the ground, and the dizzying growth of Continental's output and profits (up 34% last year alone), his wealth could rise above $20 billion and he could soon be rubbing elbows with the likes of Warren Buffett.

His only beef these days is with Washington. Mr. Hamm was invited to the White House for a "giving summit" with wealthy Americans who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity. (He's given tens of millions of dollars already to schools like Oklahoma State and for diabetes research.) "Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, they were all there," he recalls.

When it was Mr. Hamm's turn to talk briefly with President Obama, "I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this."

The president's reaction? "He turned to me and said, 'Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.'" Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, "Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing."

Washington keeps "sticking a regulatory boot at our necks and then turns around and asks: 'Why aren't you creating more jobs,'" he says. He roils at the Interior Department delays of months and sometimes years to get permits for drilling. "These delays kill projects," he says. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is now tightening the screws on the oil industry, requiring companies like Continental to report their production and federal royalties on thousands of individual leases under the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules. "I could go to jail because a local operator misreported the production in the field," he says.

The White House proposal to raise $40 billion of taxes on oil and gas—by excluding those industries from credits that go to all domestic manufacturers—is also a major hindrance to exploration and drilling. "That just stops the drilling," Mr. Hamm believes. "I've seen these things come about before, like [Jimmy] Carter's windfall profits tax." He says America's rig count on active wells went from 4,500 to less than 55 in a matter of months. "That was a dumb idea. Thank God, Reagan got rid of that."

A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow" in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.

Continental pleaded not guilty to the charges last week in federal court. For Mr. Hamm the whole incident is tantamount to harassment. "This shouldn't happen in America," he says. To him the case is further proof that Washington "is out to get us."

Mr. Hamm believes that if Mr. Obama truly wants more job creation, he should study North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5%. He swears that number is overstated: "We can't find any unemployed people up there. The state has 18,000 unfilled jobs," Mr. Hamm insists. "And these are jobs that pay $60,000 to $80,000 a year." The economy is expanding so fast that North Dakota has a housing shortage. Thanks to the oil boom—Continental pays more than $50 million in state taxes a year—the state has a budget surplus and is considering ending income and property taxes.

It's hard to disagree with Mr. Hamm's assessment that Barack Obama has the energy story in America wrong. The government floods green energy—a niche market that supplies 2.5% of our energy needs—with billions of dollars of subsidies a year. "Wind isn't commercially feasible with natural gas prices below $6" per thousand cubic feet, notes Mr. Hamm. Right now its price is below $4. This may explain the administration's hostility to the fossil-fuel renaissance.

Mr. Hamm calculates that if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, "I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties." That's more than the U.S. national debt, I say. He smiles.

This estimate sounds implausibly high, but Mr. Hamm has a lifelong habit of proving skeptics wrong. And even if he's wrong by half, it's a stunning number to think about. So this America-first energy story isn't just about jobs and economic revival. It's also about repairing America's battered balance sheet. Someone should get this man in front of the congressional deficit-reduction supercommittee.

CurtisJ
10-03-2011, 02:02 PM
As Biased as Mr. Hamm is on the subject, he makes some very good points (In the intrest of being upfront, I am employed in the Oil/Gas Industry). The industry has huge potential right now to create jobs if not in the oil sector (I am just as concerned as the next guy about CO2 emmissions) then in the natural gas sector. This nation has such abundant natural gas reserves (relatively clean burning, very cheap for the last couple of decades) that I do no understand why we are not making more effort to invest in natural gas infastructure. Everything from power stations to vehicles could be running on natural gas and/or propane (derived from natural gas) and it would drastically cut down on emmisions while creating an economic boom in the US. Oil companies are easy targets for ire in the US, they admittedly make huge profits and on occassion do very very stupid things (IE horizon), what alot of people do not realize is that they make these profits while operating on substantial risks often at very low margins. Show me another thriving industry who's product shifts so violently in market price. The technology that goes into this industry is amazing and, thanks to discovery channel shows like black gold, largely unsung to the public. Horizon, for example had so many different technologies on board that could have prevented that disaster if only they were managed properly. Fracking gets a horrible reputation throughout the states as well, but I think if people would take the time to learn about the technology and the safety precautions that go into each and every frack job they might realize that the high pressures and mysterious chemicals are isolated thousands of feet away from aquifers. The oil industry as a whole is a far cry away from the rednecks you see on shows like black oil, it is sophisticated, professional and holds saftey standards in the highes regards (A guy can't stub his toe in my office without a full investigation into the causes and preventability of the event).

Eventually petroleum based fuels will be obsolete, but the government pretending that the time is five years away is completey ridiculous, think more along the 70-100 year mark. Solar and wind have their place, and I love to see money going into R&D in these industries, but the subsidized projects are pricey with very little benefit in a time where the government can't afford to be throwing its money around.

MikeOKC
10-03-2011, 02:34 PM
Eventually petroleum based fuels will be obsolete, but the government pretending that the time is five years away is completey ridiculous, think more along the 70-100 year mark. Solar and wind have their place, and I love to see money going into R&D in these industries, but the subsidized projects are pricey with very little benefit in a time where the government can't afford to be throwing its money around.

Forget the government, forget Obama, forget wind and (probably) solar, forget everything you've ever learned about energy. These people (Hamm, McClendon, etc.) are on the wrong side of history. They are sailing against a new world. New Energy will emerge from Silicon Valley or another laboratory of the future around the world. Don't be surprised if an Apple or Google provides your energy within the next 15 years. Yes, 15 years. The desperation of those pushing to save petroleum based fuels is showing - in the dollars they're pouring into buying our elections, to the commercials that argue desperately that they will be relevant. They are short-term. Period.

I have argued that Oklahoma City having so many eggs in Old/Dirty Energy can be our downfall. We must not sail against the winds of change just because those who desperately want to hold on to the telegram in this age of instant communication are frantic over the emerging possibilities of cleaner, cheaper and easier distributed sources of energy. We are on the brink of change - it will come from technology. We can listen to Ray Kurzweil and those who believe that singularity is near and the whole world will change - or continue to listen to those who ride horseback, holding back the forces of change for their own selfish, greedy accumulation of obscene wealth.

Oklahoma City - don't ride with those who will eventually leave your city like Detroit. Look to the future and see these people as temporary providers of energy who will soon be gone and DIVERSIFY our economy now - radically. Unfortunately, our local politicians are owned, for the most part, by these Old Energy dinosaurs that will leave us behind.

We have a choice to act now - and reach across the globe for business to call Oklahoma City home, or continue to hang on with the past at our own peril.

OKCTalker
10-03-2011, 03:16 PM
Mike - Alternative energy doesn't make sense because its unaffordable and doesn't work. Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines aren't efficient or affordable alternatives to what exists, otherwise people would be buying them - they aren't, even with huge tax credits. And the government isn't a qualified venture capital investor - it blew $535 million of our tax dollars on boondoggle Solyndra which could NEVER produce economical energy. Obviously they aren't good at venture capital financing, otherwise they wouldn't have blown $535 million on this one deal. Rather, let private sector companies continue taking the risks to produce conventional energy the way they have for more than a century.

Domestic auto manufacturers ("Detroit") were killed by weak corporate, hired CEOs who repeatedly gave in to union bosses, and the result was unsustainable wages and pensions. The energy industry isn't run by weak CEO's - they're run by tough entrepreneurs with skin in the game like Harold Hamm, Larry Nichols and Aubrey McClendon, all billionaires. They know a lot more about successfully running a business than Barack Obama and his economic advisors, none of whom have ever signed the front of a paycheck.

TStheThird
10-03-2011, 03:28 PM
While I agree that there will most likely be new energy sources that emerge out of Silicon Valley, can you outline a legitimate 15 year plan to move away from fossil fuels. How will we turnover 100% of vehicles to this new technology? Who will pay for retooling our energy infrastructure, both power grid and transportation, to these new technologies? Are Apple and Google going to build new energy infrastructure? What will replace petroleum based products? Will I have to buy a new lawn mower? Am I going to be forced to cook on an electric range? Who is going to come replace all of the gas powered hot water heaters of the world? Are they going to ban classic cars? Do you really believe that "Energy" companies are not going to invest in new types of energy?

betts
10-03-2011, 04:44 PM
While I'm a fan of alternative energy sources, I'm quite sure Oklahoma City would welcome businesses outside of the oil and gas industry if they were interested in locating here. The reasons we are top-heavy in energy is because that's who is interested in being here, not because OKC is giving other businesses the cold shoulder. I think it's always wise to diversify.....if you can.

Pete
10-03-2011, 05:32 PM
OKC is far more diversified than people may believe. Chesapeake and Devon (and now SandRidge and Continental) are very high profile but of the 30 largest employers in the metro, there are only two energy companies: Devon & CHK.

Those 30 companies represent 145,000 jobs and Devon & CHK combined only employ 5,600, or 3.8% of that total amount. The State and Tinker together employ almost 70,000.


Alternative energy is a very long way from even beginning to make a dent in the oil consumed worldwide. At the same time, consumption is going up rapidly in Asian countries and will far outpace anything alternative sources can provide for the foreseeable future:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Oil_consumption_per_day_by_region_from_1980_to_200 6.svg/600px-Oil_consumption_per_day_by_region_from_1980_to_200 6.svg.png

soonerguru
10-03-2011, 09:20 PM
F*** Harold Hamm. There is more domestic production right now, with Obama as president, then there has been in American history. These rich f***s are just GOP apologists and don't want to pay taxes.

What Hamm is saying is bulls**t. For one, we are giving these companies massive tax breaks already. There are virtually unlimited opportunities to drill wherever the F*** they want (outside of national parks and urban centers, except, choke, Fort Worth). Oklahoma and Texas are booming economically in the energy sector because of this increase in drilling activity.

The fact is that natural gas as a commodity has not reached the orgiastic climax envisioned by Aubrey and others, and they want the government to give them a bunch of welfare and force it on the buying public. Socialists.

This is all a game to pin the tail on the donkey because the energy industry subsidy (tax giveaway) is threatened. Attack Obama and try to distract the public from the fact that we're subsidizing companies like Exxon-Mobil to drill when they would drill with or without the subsidy.

soonerguru
10-03-2011, 09:25 PM
Mike - Alternative energy doesn't make sense because its unaffordable and doesn't work. Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines aren't efficient or affordable alternatives to what exists, otherwise people would be buying them - they aren't, even with huge tax credits. And the government isn't a qualified venture capital investor - it blew $535 million of our tax dollars on boondoggle Solyndra which could NEVER produce economical energy. Obviously they aren't good at venture capital financing, otherwise they wouldn't have blown $535 million on this one deal. Rather, let private sector companies continue taking the risks to produce conventional energy the way they have for more than a century.

Domestic auto manufacturers ("Detroit") were killed by weak corporate, hired CEOs who repeatedly gave in to union bosses, and the result was unsustainable wages and pensions. The energy industry isn't run by weak CEO's - they're run by tough entrepreneurs with skin in the game like Harold Hamm, Larry Nichols and Aubrey McClendon, all billionaires. They know a lot more about successfully running a business than Barack Obama and his economic advisors, none of whom have ever signed the front of a paycheck.

WTF are you talking about? The oil and gas energy receives massive handouts from the government, easily the equivalent of the stipends used for alternative energy.

Regarding Obama's economic advisers, many of whom were successful Wall Street and industry titans, quit casually tossing off this "didn't sign a paycheck" propaganda as fact. Many of his economic advisers were more successful / responsible corporate citizens than Aubrey "debt up to his eyeballs" McClendon.

Do you think American citizens should continue to subsidize drilling by providing tax credits to multibillion dollar oil companies? That is absurd.

Detroit, which was recently saved by Obama and his advisers (against the advice of Republicans like yourself), and has largely repaid its government largesse (unlike the banks that screwed us all to begin with) did not nearly die at the hands of unions alone. It almost died because of bad business models and poorly engineered / imagined products. Amazing that it's doing well now that it is actually producing cars people want (something the unions had no control over).

soonerguru
10-03-2011, 09:51 PM
Reread the article. When the issue of the tax credits comes up, Mr. Hamm says if these tax credits are stopped, "That just stops the drilling."

Stop and think about that for a moment. We have a billionaire energy industry titan saying we need the government to support the energy industry with tax credits or drilling will "stop."

I don't care who you are, or what your political persuasion is, you know that is straight-up bullsh**. For one, companies will drill where there's oil and gas to be drilled and when the market demand is there to drill -- with or without the government giveaway. Two, how rich is it for one of these "keep government out of the economy" types to completely ignore the huge giveaways his industry receives at the hands of taxpayers?

This is corporate welfare, but Hamm is too proud to admit it.

If you honestly believe Continental, Devon and others will stop drilling if we stop giving them government handouts I have a bridge to sell you.

MikeOKC
10-03-2011, 11:31 PM
While I agree that there will most likely be new energy sources that emerge out of Silicon Valley, can you outline a legitimate 15 year plan to move away from fossil fuels. How will we turnover 100% of vehicles to this new technology? Who will pay for retooling our energy infrastructure, both power grid and transportation, to these new technologies? Are Apple and Google going to build new energy infrastructure? What will replace petroleum based products? Will I have to buy a new lawn mower? Am I going to be forced to cook on an electric range? Who is going to come replace all of the gas powered hot water heaters of the world? Are they going to ban classic cars? Do you really believe that "Energy" companies are not going to invest in new types of energy?


I wish I could outline that 15 year plan. I would be on the cover of Time next week. All I can say is that advancing technology is approaching a point of one year for 5 years. Do the math. In other words every year of technological advancement is equal to the previous five. That's not how fast they roll it out to the consumer, of course, that's research in the labs. It will take one "eureka" moment in energy research and the world will change - and it will change at a pace we can hardly imagine. This isn't science fiction, this is real science, real technology and the genie will be out of the bottle before Old Energy will have a chance to be a player. Why? Because they're not in the technology industry - they're tethered to fossil fuels.

While I don't have that 15 year plan, nobody had a 15 year plan in 1996 for bandwidth like we have today, carry-around touch tablet technology was said to still be 25 years away. With technology advancement at 1>5 that means that 3 years from now, we'll be as far ahead in 2014 as all the advancement in technology in the past fifteen years since 1996. In six years - back to 1981. And we haven't figured in the next leap to 1>4. Bottom line: knowing now how it will happen and when - is impossible, we only know that we're at a point where when it does happen it will occur with far less R&D time due to rapid advancement in technology.

OKCTalker
10-04-2011, 05:51 AM
When I was attending business school in California in the late-1970s, we invited the head of Standard Oil to speak. During the Q&A at the end, he was asked about the threats/opportunities of alternative energy on the oil & gas industry. His reply: "In 10 years, you'll know us not as "Standard Oil," but as "Standard Energy."

Even when industry insiders predict change, it doesn't happen. And it won't, until and unless something is demonstrated to consumers to be a better alternative. That "something" isn't out there, and not for lack of people throwing lots of money at possibilities.

Just the facts
10-04-2011, 06:43 AM
The best, most efficient, form of energy production is eating food and converting it kentic energy by walking or riding a bike. Now we just need to create a world (again) where walking or riding a bike is the first option.

king183
10-04-2011, 09:48 AM
I wish I could outline that 15 year plan. I would be on the cover of Time next week. All I can say is that advancing technology is approaching a point of one year for 5 years. Do the math. In other words every year of technological advancement is equal to the previous five. That's not how fast they roll it out to the consumer, of course, that's research in the labs. It will take one "eureka" moment in energy research and the world will change - and it will change at a pace we can hardly imagine. This isn't science fiction, this is real science, real technology and the genie will be out of the bottle before Old Energy will have a chance to be a player. Why? Because they're not in the technology industry - they're tethered to fossil fuels.

While I don't have that 15 year plan, nobody had a 15 year plan in 1996 for bandwidth like we have today, carry-around touch tablet technology was said to still be 25 years away. With technology advancement at 1>5 that means that 3 years from now, we'll be as far ahead in 2014 as all the advancement in technology in the past fifteen years since 1996. In six years - back to 1981. And we haven't figured in the next leap to 1>4. Bottom line: knowing now how it will happen and when - is impossible, we only know that we're at a point where when it does happen it will occur with far less R&D time due to rapid advancement in technology.

You should read Tyler Cowen's The Great Stagnation and some stuff by Peter Thiel. Both would disagree with you based on their view that we've actually hit a technological plateau. They believe, in other words, that we've actually become stuck in a rut in technology and other areas because we've consumed "the low hanging fruit"-- resources that were previously readily available for no or low costs. Thiel is especially frustrated at the lagging pace of technological advancement.

Anyway, I encourage you to read up on both. They have interesting and well-informed perspectives on the issue.

Pete
10-04-2011, 10:22 AM
One area where advances have slowed down substantially is batteries. They were getting smaller, lighter and with more capacity but it seems like we've been at a plateau for a while now.

Batteries are huge not only in terms of vehicles but for collecting and storing energy generated through solar, wind, etc. And there really isn't a good, workable solution for now.

Things could all change but it seems like the advances have greatly slowed of late and it may be a while before we have another significant breakthrough.

flintysooner
10-04-2011, 10:26 AM
Tesla Shows Off Highly Anticipated Model S Electric Car (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpps/money/tesla-model-s-highly-anticipated-electric-car-dpgoha-20111004-fc_15315882)

BoulderSooner
10-04-2011, 10:34 AM
another note is the batteries in cars dont' last forever and when discarded are some of the most toxic least envirmently friendly things known to man kind ..

of national energy policy is a joke ... we want more production but then tell the oil companys that we want to use less of their product in the next 10 years ...

hamm is on the mark with that interview

Pete
10-04-2011, 10:42 AM
And of course, about 70% of the electricity generated in this country and elsewhere in the world is from fossil fuel, which means that even electric cars are very dependent on oil/coal/natural gas.

flintysooner
10-04-2011, 11:39 AM
That Tesla S at 5.6 sec for 0 to 60 is pretty impressive though. Of course the price at $54,700 start is pretty impressive, too. Range isn't too bad. Battery life is supposed to be 5 to 7 years with 10 possible. I've read that battery pack cost is more than $25,000.

Just the facts
10-04-2011, 12:41 PM
In 17 years I have spent $0 on my bike. It did have a one-time up front cost of $99 though. My wife's bike on the hand has been nothing but trouble; 2 flat tires in those same 17 years.

MikeOKC
10-04-2011, 01:30 PM
In 17 years I have spent $0 on my bike. It did have a one-time up front cost of $99 though. My wife's bike on the hand has been nothing but trouble; 2 flat tires in those same 17 years.

Your interests have changed a lot lately. Are you about ready to go "off-the-grid?"

OKCTalker
10-04-2011, 02:39 PM
He's not riding much. I get a flat about every 2,000 miles on my bike, but I change tubes every 1,000 miles or so. I have a gut feel that Just and Mrs. Just aren't commuters.

Just the facts
10-05-2011, 06:59 AM
He's not riding much. I get a flat about every 2,000 miles on my bike, but I change tubes every 1,000 miles or so. I have a gut feel that Just and Mrs. Just aren't commuters.

I work from home and my wife is a stay at home mom - so no, we don't commute. Until recently my car got about 30 mpg so to be honest gas prices didn't affect me very much because I didn't buy gas very often. My wife hated my car so we always took her Armada, which I seldom put gas in. I filled my tank about once a month.

Then I bought a new truck.

The truck gets 16 mpg and since my wife and kids like riding in it we take it most places. I fill-up every week and it cost about $80. So I went from spending $70 per month to spending $320 just for gas - and I don't even have to commute to work. Granted, that was money being spent anyhow because it was going into my wife's gas tank instead of mine but I didn't fully understand the impact until it was me swiping the debit card and tearing off the recipet. Suffice to say, I am now taking my bike as much as I can and it has changed my shopping habits accordingly. I am now frequenting businesses that are within bike riding distance instead of driving to distant shopping centers. Because we live in a subdivision a lot of my mileage is wasted just getting to the main collector road.

How long does it take you to cover 2,000 miles? My wife just bought me an odometer so I can keep track of total miles. Next on my list is either a rack over the rear tire or a little trailer so I can carry items easier.

Bellaboo
10-05-2011, 07:21 AM
When the first passenger jet flies accross the ocean with 'green energy', i'll be impressed. Some of you people on this board need to wake up.

Just the facts
10-05-2011, 07:54 AM
When the first passenger jet flies accross the ocean with 'green energy', i'll be impressed. Some of you people on this board need to wake up.

If we could get everyone on-board to help pedal it could be done without even having to use 'green energy'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314509/Human-powered-aircraft-makes-aviation-history-fly-using-flapping-wings.html


It has been the dream of engineers and eccentric inventors for centuries.
And ever since Leonardo da Vinci sketched the first human-powered ornithopter in 1485, humans have tried to take to the air like birds by flapping their wings.
But now a human-powered aircraft has made aviation history by becoming the first with flapping wings to fly continuously.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314509/Human-powered-aircraft-makes-aviation-history-fly-using-flapping-wings.html#ixzz1ZuohmLiw


http://vimeo.com/15168011

flintysooner
10-05-2011, 10:06 AM
NASA Awards Historic Green Aviation Prize (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/centennial/gfc_final.html)

The winning aircraft had to fly 200 miles in less than two hours and use less than one gallon of fuel per occupant, or the equivalent in electricity. The first and second place teams, which were both electric-powered, achieved twice the fuel efficiency requirement of the competition, meaning they flew 200 miles using just over a half-gallon of fuel equivalent per passenger.

"Two years ago the thought of flying 200 miles at 100 mph in an electric aircraft was pure science fiction," said Jack W. Langelaan, team leader of Team Pipistrel-USA.com. "Now, we are all looking forward to the future of electric aviation."

BPD
10-05-2011, 10:18 AM
When the first passenger jet flies accross the ocean with 'green energy', i'll be impressed. Some of you people on this board need to wake up.
+1