fucking finally

[Nati Ice]

[BengalBacker]

Context is always important, and if it was a response to a question about what an individual can do, I'll cut him an inch of slack.

However.

What I saw and heard, was the implication that inflating our tires would make drilling unneeded. I think that's naive at best, disengenuous at worst. I say we drill AND inflate our tires and reduce our dependancy as much as possible.

Look, I understand the environmental concerns, and all that. I'm not saying just turn 'em loose to drill wherever they want, but in today's world, oil is the most important commodity, after food. If we know we have it, common sense says we should be producing it so we aren't completely at the mercy of other countries. Even friendly countries, much less the ones that hate us. Not to mention all the money leaving us and going to them.

Of course the oil companies are going to sell us gas and make (obscene) profit no matter where it's being drilled, and countries are just lines on a map, so who knows? From their perspective it might be easier to remain essentially the middle man, rather than commit to the enormous investments involved in offshore, or ANWAR drilling and processing. They probably figure they're sitting pretty and don't much give a shit either way. Hell, they might secretly bribe the Democrats more than they do Republicans. :hmm:

[Nati Ice]

i really dont have an opionion on the domestic drilling issue because i can see the logic in both sides, however i am beginning to lean towards the "no" side as from what i understand we have already given the oil companies rights to many of the prime domestic fields and they have failed to drill those areas for whatever reason (because its a fucking racket) and would probably do the same if offered more land. to me it appears to be no more then a rights/land grab by the oil companies and would yield negligible results that wouldnt even enter the market for another 10 years down the road.

however, my main reason for posting this video is to say that its about damn time someone realized shrugging off these lies and frodulant accusations by the right wing was not the way to win an election *cough* kerry *cough.* especially when you have little things like facts and logic on your side.

[bengalsfansince68]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='684660' date='Aug 6 2008, 04:14 AM'][color="#0000FFWhat I saw and heard, was the implication that inflating our tires would make drilling unneeded. I think that's naive at best, disengenuous at worst. [/color][/quote]

I'm unclear on how you could come away from that with that. He clearly did not say that inflating our tires was the only way out of this mess. Suggesting that he did was merely more scurrilous republican bullshit much as mocking the truth that he spoke that everyone properly inflating their tires would help. It would help and McCain can suck my nutsack. I used to be a fan of McCain as one of a very select few republicans with an ounce of integrity but he has thrown all of that down the sewer.

I'm not very happy with my choices once again, but I will never vote for Bush light.
Blo me neo-cons.
When the guy at the top of your party gets his ass kicked by Paris Hilton, he surely has no business in the Oval office.
Punk!!

[bengalrick]

I hope that Obama really tries to keep using this reasoning... I do applaud him for coming around on drilling, but this is a losing argument.. Even if it is true, (and I doubt that inflating your tires correctly will give the same effect as drilling for millions more barrels of oil a day) it is a losing issue b/c it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

I am all for conservation of oil and using these tactics to help the energy crisis... We should be doing many things like using less air and less heat... but to think that inflating your tires is a winning argument in this election is honestly comical...

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='684964' date='Aug 6 2008, 05:32 PM']I hope that Obama really tries to keep using this reasoning... I do applaud him for coming around on drilling, but this is a losing argument.. Even if it is true, (and I doubt that inflating your tires correctly will give the same effect as drilling for millions more barrels of oil a day) it is a losing issue b/c it doesn't make a whole lot of sense...

I am all for conservation of oil and using these tactics to help the energy crisis... We should be doing many things like using less air and less heat... but to think that inflating your tires is a winning argument in this election is honestly comical...[/quote]

He never tried to make it his "winning argument". It was part of a speech. The McCain campaign and the media have talked about that one line from a speech as if that was his main point. Sadly in the sound byte era it seems like no one questions whether or not the Media is using this clip in a deceiving way or not.

[bengalrick]

I guess I'm trying to say that this isn't [b]a[/b] winning argument (notice i didn't say THE winning argument, only "a winning argument") and he would be best to avoid it and move on... I know that that isn't all that he said or meant, but in todays society, you have to understand the dynamics of a situation and either attack back and get the hell out of the way... As a mccain supporter, I hope that he keeps bringing it back up b/c i don't think it helps his chances of becoming president...

a side note... how should we enforce inflating tires exactly? Should we mandate that there be a federal agent at all gas stations checking and adjusting your tire pressure? I know this is ridiculous but it goes to my point that this is a change that we can all make individually and it is ridiculous for this to be a realistic energy policy made by a presidential candidate... It can be suggested, but should not be used as an argument that we shouldn't drill for our own oil...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='bengalsfansince68' post='684940' date='Aug 6 2008, 04:00 PM']I'm unclear on how you could come away from that with that. He clearly did not say that inflating our tires was the only way out of this mess. Suggesting that he did was merely more scurrilous republican bullshit much as mocking the truth that he spoke that everyone properly inflating their tires would help. It would help and McCain can suck my nutsack. I used to be a fan of McCain as one of a very select few republicans with an ounce of integrity but he has thrown all of that down the sewer.

I'm not very happy with my choices once again, but I will never vote for Bush light.
Blo me neo-cons.
When the guy at the top of your party gets his ass kicked by Paris Hilton, he surely has no business in the Oval office.
Punk!![/quote]
I am undecided, but this post reeks of partisanship, and a lack of understanding of the oil issue. If we have resources that are available to us, but we have self-imposed legislation that prevents it's extraction, in this time of energy crises I say DRILL and drill some more, regardless of which party is at the helm.

Anything we can do to foster an environment of a semblance of energy independence while we simultanesouly make sincere efforts to transition away from fossil-fueled vehicles is a non-starter in my book.

Even the prospect of the US investigating new oil resources will at a bare minimum restore some faith in the commodities market, where speculation over oil has run rampant and driven prices through the roof.

As for the perception that the oil companies own these vast tracts of land lease that somehow they "refuse to drill, so why give them access for more land", I offer up this:
an email conversation with very smart people.

Classmates-

This is the first of two e-mails on the subject. Please forgive me for the length of this but I felt some details were required to tell the story. The second e-mail will concern recent correspondence I have had with the American Petroleum Institute. Regards, Don



I am encouraged to read of the many recent initiatives in developing alternative energy sources and I strongly support these as well as conservation measures. Nonetheless we will not do away with the need for oil and gas anytime in the near future and it seems to me that we should do everything possible right now, including opening up promising offshore areas for exploration, to reduce the rate of decline in domestic oil production. I do not believe, as some suggest, that this will prolong our dependence on oil. Further I don’t think it will significantly reduce the price but it will certainly help to hold the line or reduce the rate of increase. We need all the help we can get and as soon as we can get it. The recent discussion on lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling has brought a democratic response of reasons why we shouldn’t resume exploration in the 85% of the offshore areas that are now off limits. I would like to address the following criticisms that seem to be recurring:



The industry isn’t drilling many of the leases it has so why do they need to have more leases?



This assertion seems to imply that all of the leases the industry holds are of equal potential and that operators simply go from one lease to the next drilling holes in the ground at random. This idea represents either a gross misunderstanding of industry practices or a deliberate deception by telling a half truth. While it is true that many leases are not being drilled and in fact will not be drilled, it is totally untrue that all leases are of equal potential until they are drilled. A few facts about industry practice might shed some light.



The MMS holds a systematic series of lease sales based on a five year plan (the current plan is 2007-2012; 13 lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) are planned or have been conducted for this five years). At each sale a number of tracts are offered to industry. These tracts are typically 3 miles square (9 square miles). For example in lease sale 206 held in March 2008, 615 tracts were bid on by 85 different companies. Many more blocks were offered but not bid on. The details of the sales always show that bidders place an extremely wide range of potential value on the various lease blocks even before the sale. Before a company bids they do a detailed in-house investigation of the blocks being offered. They look at available geologic data, seismic records, in-house experience, company proprietary technology (for interpretation), etc. The purpose of this investigation is to determine what they believe the leases are worth considering the probability of finding significant resources and the probable cost of development.


In Sale 206 the bids on the 615 blocks ranged from 105 million dollars for one block- obviously the partnership bidding this amount considered it to have very high potential to a little over 2 thousand dollars for the lowest bid block (a much smaller block than normal)- obviously having very low potential. Approximately 90 of the leases went for between 105 million and 10 million while over 300 bids were less than 1 million. To me this makes the graphic point that the lease blocks have vastly different perceived potentials. It further underscores why so many leases are not drilled- simply because they are not considered good prospects.


A majority of blocks were not bid on at all presumably because they are considered to have very low potential. Often companies submit nominal bids for a number of blocks that are considered low potential for a variety of reasons e.g. betting that some additional investigation might make them worth something even though the odds are low. From the outset it seems very likely that most of the low potential blocks will not be drilled, especially considering that drilling a single exploration well may cost 50 million dollars or more and ties up valuable and scarce resources. This is not sitting on leases- it is simply a business decision based on the best available information.


Currently the most promising blocks for oil in the GOM are in deep water or ultra deep water- currently as deep as 10,000 feet. Resources, if found in these blocks, must be very attractive to justify the high cost of development- say 1 to 2 billion dollars all in costs for a single field development. Further, a development of this type requires enormous resources including a small army of engineers and scientists. Even the largest companies are limited in the number of such developments it can undertake.


Contrast this with the potential leases that are now off limits. There are undoubtedly many resources in these areas that would be much easier, less costly, and faster to develop as well as having more potential than many of the GOM offerings. A shallow water development may cost 10% of a deepwater facility and requires a much shorter time to complete. Further, in many of the areas that are off limits now there is little or no infrastructure (pipelines, processing facilities, etc) or in some cases a gradually decaying infrastructure. Waiting to develop these areas ensures that they will take much longer to develop if the industry finally does get a green light.


It’s not going to help right away.



This seems to be Obama’s response, Yes. That is true and your point is? Among the things I have heard this one stands out as the most myopic. Perhaps it was a gut response to the over-reaching claim by some conservatives that this is the answer to energy independence- it isn’t. It makes me heart sick sometimes to see how polarized we become on issues. We simply need to start developing these resources as soon as we can to at least slow the rate at which we are falling behind. If prices stay up at the current level or even near this level I believe it will be a market stimulus for accelerating the development of alternate energy forms but this by anyone’s count will take many years to make a significant dent. In the interim we need all the help we can get and exploring and producing in these areas will help immensely.



Developing These Areas Puts Tourism Trade in Jeopardy



This seems to be one of the primary reasons these areas were put off limits to start with. The justification is the likelihood of an oil spill spoiling beaches etc. No one can absolutely guarantee that such an event won’t happen but the record certainly suggests it is a very low probability. The MMS gives industry very high marks for personnel and environmental safety in offshore exploration and production operations. There has not been a major spill associated with exploration and production operations since the late 60’s. Technology has vastly improved since then. In spite of a number of rigs being toppled during Rita and Katrina there were no significant spills. The MMS estimates (see mms.gov) that natural oil seeps add about 150 times more oil to the water column than exploration and production operations do. Ironically putting 85% of the offshore areas off limits for exploration and production as our government now has done stimulates imports and adds tanker traffic which is where the environmental risk is the greatest.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='685047' date='Aug 6 2008, 09:20 PM']I guess I'm trying to say that this isn't [b]a[/b] winning argument (notice i didn't say THE winning argument, only "a winning argument") and he would be best to avoid it and move on... I know that that isn't all that he said or meant, but in todays society, you have to understand the dynamics of a situation and either attack back and get the hell out of the way... As a mccain supporter, I hope that he keeps bringing it back up b/c i don't think it helps his chances of becoming president...

a side note... how should we enforce inflating tires exactly? Should we mandate that there be a federal agent at all gas stations checking and adjusting your tire pressure? I know this is ridiculous but it goes to [color="#FF0000"]my point that this is a change that we can all make individually[/color] and it is ridiculous for this to be a realistic energy policy made by a presidential candidate... It can be suggested, but should not be used as an argument that we shouldn't drill for our own oil...[/quote]


that was obama's point as well, he was asked by a person in the audience what he could do individually

[steggyD]

I believe the feds are going to create a team that will go house to house checking for guns and ammo. And on the way out, they are going to check tire pressure on all your vehicles. Isn't this the plan?

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='steggyD' post='685069' date='Aug 6 2008, 10:15 PM']I believe the feds are going to create a team that will go house to house checking for guns and ammo. And on the way out, they are going to check tire pressure on all your vehicles. Isn't this the plan?[/quote]

"If you don't have anything to hide what's the problem?"

[bengalrick]

Jamie, that does make a big difference, but for him to sit there and say that [i]“we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,”[/i] is just plain wrong and doesn't make logical sense...

reading more into this [url="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html"]here[/url] it goes into specifics but the main point of the article is this:
[i]
Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that "the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day."

Current crude oil and condensate production in the OCS is about 1.25 million barrels per day.

So... What does that mean?

It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS.

However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says.

"So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output," he rules. "Finally, without knowing what production volumes could be expected from lifting the ban on OCS drilling moratoria, it’s impossible to assert that taking these fuel savings actions would exceed future offshore oil volumes, and in fact, one might argue that the combination of achieving these savings AND developing new supply would doubly enhance US energy security."[/i]


And the main point is that to realistically do this, you would have to [b]enforce[/b] this... we have all known about tire pressure and how it affects gas prices... We all know that cigarettes cause cancer, that drinking when your preganent causes birth defects, speeding is dangerous and causes many deaths, eating foods high in cholesterol causes heart problems, and so on and so forth.. Yet millions of people do all of these every day... They are individual choices that we all make...

The only way for this to truely help is to force people into making their tire pressure right and keeping their cars tuned up... And why stop there? Wouldn't forcing people to keep their AC at 78 help too? And making people keep their heat at 70 would do wonders to help us save oil and gas... I doubt that you agree with any of the above, and with that being said, why is he comparing it to drilling for more oil in the US? One is a policy change, the other is an individual choice that is unrealistic without communist like restrictions to enforce it...

Like I said above, this is not a winning issue for him because most people don't need to see the numbers to understand this is not a realistic comparison...

[Jamie_B]

Rick he wasnt saying that he was going to run around and enforce it, stop putting words in his mouth. It was a question asked by an individual about what they as a individual could to to help the cause.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='685100' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:14 PM']Rick he wasnt saying that he was going to run around and enforce it, stop putting words in his mouth. It was a question asked by an individual about what they as a individual could to to help the cause.[/quote]
But that's not what Rush said, Jamie, so it can't be true!

[steggyD]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' post='685072' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:20 PM']"If you don't have anything to hide what's the problem?" [/quote]
If I have to hide my guns, then it's done. We lose!

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='685100' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:14 PM']Rick he wasnt saying that he was going to run around and enforce it, stop putting words in his mouth. It was a question asked by an individual about what they as a individual could to to help the cause.[/quote]

I did not say that either... I said that that is the only way it has a realistic chance of making the impact he is talking about... I even went as far to show you that there are much larger problems like speeding, drinking while pregnant, smoking cigerettes, yet a large amount of people do them anyway, and some of them ARE enforced... you honestly think that if Obama says to do something, the whole world will automatically do it, and problem solved? That is why his inexperience hurts him b/c of how damn nieve he is and thinks we are...

Look at his original quote at the top of my last post... He may have been talking what people could do as an individual but he decided to compare it by saying that we could save as much from inflating tires and tuning your car as we could from drilling oil... It sounds to me that he went a little further than just saying we should individually conserve to help this mess out..



[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='685110' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:32 PM']But that's not what Rush said, Jamie, so it can't be true![/quote]


I don't listen to rush... He reminds me too much of partisan assholes on this board....

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='685160' date='Aug 7 2008, 07:06 AM']I did not say that either... I said that that is the only way it has a realistic chance of making the impact he is talking about... I even went as far to show you that there are much larger problems like speeding, drinking while pregnant, smoking cigerettes, yet a large amount of people do them anyway, and some of them ARE enforced... you honestly think that if Obama says to do something, the whole world will automatically do it, and problem solved? That is why his inexperience hurts him b/c of how damn nieve he is and thinks we are...

Look at his original quote at the top of my last post... He may have been talking what people could do as an individual but he decided to compare it by saying that we could save as much from inflating tires and tuning your car as we could from drilling oil... It sounds to me that he went a little further than just saying we should individually conserve to help this mess out..






I don't listen to rush... He reminds me too much of partisan assholes on this board.... [/quote]


Of course I dont think that people will automaticlly follow what he says, but what he was saying was that if every individual did what that impact could be, but he isnt nieve enough to believe everyone will, that's why it isnt his policy, just a suggestion to an individual. Your really taking the suggestion and running with it further than it was intended.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='685160' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:06 PM']I don't listen to rush... He reminds me too much of partisan assholes on this board.... [/quote]
Well, you obviously didn't listen to what Obama actually said, either. So you got your misinformation from somewhere.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='685175' date='Aug 7 2008, 07:58 AM']Of course I dont think that people will automaticlly follow what he says, but what he was saying was that if every individual did what that impact could be, but he isnt nieve enough to believe everyone will, that's why it isnt his policy, just a suggestion to an individual. Your really taking the suggestion and running with it further than it was intended.[/quote]

you admit that it is unrealistic that everyone does as he says, yet you don't see anything wrong w/ this comparison saying that in this Obama fantasy world, if everyone did that we could save as much oil as drilling could give us? Who gives a shit if we could save that much energy, if it is totally unrealistic w/out enforcement...

You still don't see what is wrong w/ this comparison?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='685206' date='Aug 7 2008, 09:00 AM']Well, you obviously didn't listen to what Obama actually said, either. So you got your misinformation from somewhere. [/quote]

“we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,”

What words did i mince? He is comparing the oil we could save in his fantasy comparison to the oil we could get from drilling...

enlighten me kangar...

[Homer_Rice]

I'm all for whichever party creates the [b]R[/b]etired [b]E[/b]nergy [b]T[/b]ire [b]A[/b]ir [b]R[/b]ecalibration [b]D[/b]istributors program. We could put two former mechanics at every gas station with fancy uniforms, including holsters for their shiny $800 tire gauge gizmos, exclusively purchased via a no-bid contract. We could also pay them with groceries and train them with a pedagogy developed by the same folks who came up with the brilliant plan to check my feeble, white-haired mother's shoes for explosives whenever she flies from Duckandsquat, Ky to Asscrack, WVa.

Can't be too careful or proactive, I say.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='685289' date='Aug 8 2008, 03:18 AM']“we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,”

What words did i mince? He is comparing the oil we could save in his fantasy comparison to the oil we could get from drilling...

enlighten me kangar...[/quote]
watch the damn video and enlighten yourself.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='685296' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:33 PM']I'm all for whichever party creates the [b]R[/b]etired [b]E[/b]nergy [b]T[/b]ire [b]A[/b]ir [b]R[/b]ecalibration [b]D[/b]istributors program. We could put two former mechanics at every gas station with fancy uniforms, including holsters for their shiny $800 tire gauge gizmos, exclusively purchased via a no-bid contract. We could also pay them with groceries and train them with a pedagogy developed by the same folks who came up with the brilliant plan to check my feeble, white-haired mother's shoes for explosives whenever she flies from Duckandsquat, Ky to Asscrack, WVa.

Can't be too careful or proactive, I say.[/quote]



I needed a good laugh homer... thanks...

[bengalrick]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='685298' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:35 PM']watch the damn video and enlighten yourself.[/quote]

ok a listened to the video and i don't see what the fuck your talking about... So what that he was asked a question about what individuals could do... i agree w/ the first part of his response on that question... the problem is when he tries to make a dumb, fairy tail, nieve comment about how if everyone (Key word) did as he said, we might be able to save as much as what we could if we drilled... he is making a dumb ass comparison that is 100% unrealistic without enforcement from R.E.T.A.R.D.

How about this comparison: if we stopped everyone from eating at McDonalds, we would save as many lives as creating a cure for heart disease...

get it yet?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='685287' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:16 PM']you admit that it is unrealistic that everyone does as he says, yet you don't see anything wrong w/ this comparison saying that in this Obama fantasy world, if everyone did that we could save as much oil as drilling could give us? Who gives a shit if we could save that much energy, if it is totally unrealistic w/out enforcement...

You still don't see what is wrong w/ this comparison?[/quote]


Rick it's no different than telling people to turn down their thermostats to save energy, we arent going to enforce that either, but it's something people on an individual level can do. Your acting as if that is his policy, which it clearly isnt.

How do you miss this?