Biden cannot walk a mile in Sarah's shoes

Open and general public discussions about things outside of Lakewood.

Moderator: Jim O'Bryan

Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

Jim DeVito wrote:Bill, What are you so afraid of? Please give me one example of what will happen if Obama gets elected.

I will start. I am afraid that if Mccain gets elected we will continue to ignore science and hedge our future on the drill baby drill mantra.
Yes, and why not drill??? It is going to take decades to to convert the 250,000,000 vehicle in this country that run on gas to an alternative.
Jim DeVito
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Post by Jim DeVito »

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Jim DeVito wrote:Bill, What are you so afraid of? Please give me one example of what will happen if Obama gets elected.

I will start. I am afraid that if Mccain gets elected we will continue to ignore science and hedge our future on the drill baby drill mantra.
Yes, and why not drill??? It is going to take decades to to convert the 250,000,000 vehicle in this country that run on gas to an alternative.


Where are you getting decades from? Seems to me that it only took a couple of months of higher gas prices for sales of SUV's to plummet and sales of cars to take off. Just look at the earnings of the big 3. Who have pigeonholed themselves into selling big SUV's.

There will still be oil. It will just be a pain in the @#$ to use it. It will cost more. And frankly that is the way it should be. If amreican will cannot produce innovation in the green sector then perhaps necessity can.
Jim DeVito
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Post by Jim DeVito »

Getting back to the topic at hand. I saw the interview. Frankly I find it hard for the women to call herself a reporter. She asked the same ridiculous question 3 times. She had the most obvious biased. (Her husband is a conservative media consultant for the GOP as well as a donor.) But lets not mess with her family that is off limits ;-) Lets focus on her horrendous biased Check out the video of her interviewing mccain This lady is a joke.
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

Jim DeVito wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Jim DeVito wrote:Bill, What are you so afraid of? Please give me one example of what will happen if Obama gets elected.

I will start. I am afraid that if Mccain gets elected we will continue to ignore science and hedge our future on the drill baby drill mantra.
Yes, and why not drill??? It is going to take decades to to convert the 250,000,000 vehicle in this country that run on gas to an alternative.


Where are you getting decades from? Seems to me that it only took a couple of months of higher gas prices for sales of SUV's to plummet and sales of cars to take off. Just look at the earnings of the big 3. Who have pigeonholed themselves into selling big SUV's.

There will still be oil. It will just be a pain in the @#$ to use it. It will cost more. And frankly that is the way it should be. If amreican will cannot produce innovation in the green sector then perhaps necessity can.
Cars that run on gas???? So why do we need to stop drilling? :D :D Oh yeah... If we inflate our tires and tune up our cars up then we do not need to drill... :roll: Nevermind adding more oil to the supply to drive down the price of oil and decrease our dependency on foreign oil and help the US dollar... :roll: Again, there are 250,000,000 vehicles in this country that run on gas or diesel.. Are you suggesting that auto and truck manufacturers are equipped to replace all 250,000,000 vehicles in a short periood of time?
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

Jim DeVito wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand. I saw the interview. Frankly I find it hard for the women to call herself a reporter. She asked the same ridiculous question 3 times. She had the most obvious biased. (Her husband is a conservative media consultant for the GOP as well as a donor.) But lets not mess with her family that is off limits ;-) Lets focus on her horrendous biased Check out the video of her interviewing mccain This lady is a joke.
LOL I am all out of Kool-Aid... How about a beer Jim? :D :wink:
Jim DeVito
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Post by Jim DeVito »

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Jim DeVito wrote:Getting back to the topic at hand. I saw the interview. Frankly I find it hard for the women to call herself a reporter. She asked the same ridiculous question 3 times. She had the most obvious biased. (Her husband is a conservative media consultant for the GOP as well as a donor.) But lets not mess with her family that is off limits ;-) Lets focus on her horrendous biased Check out the video of her interviewing mccain This lady is a joke.
LOL I am all out of Kool-Aid... How about a beer Jim? :D :wink:


Man if the Kool-Aid is that good what kind of beer are we drinking ;-)
Brian Pedaci
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Brian Pedaci »

Stephen Eisel wrote:If we inflate our tires and tune up our cars up then we do not need to drill...


Small point of contention - that suggestion was given in response to a question about what individuals can do right now to make a difference in oil consumption.

For what it's worth, Popular Mechanics ran the numbers and found he was more or less right.

Will maintaining proper tire pressures make a huge difference in the enormous amount of oil we import? No. But it can make a dent, albeit a very small one. According to the Department of Energy, underinflated tires alone cost the country more than 1.25 billion gal. of gasoline annually—roughly 1 percent of the total consumption of 142 billion gal. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, published by the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent.

We opened this discussion with Sen. Obama's assertion that we can offset the need to reopen offshore drilling—and save money at the pump—by keeping our tires inflated properly. He's right, although he's ignoring the potential for making a serious dent in natural gas production rates. You know what? I'm not running straight out to buy luxury items with the savings like I was supposed to with my incentive check. But then again, if you're reading Popular Mechanics, you already know that proper auto maintenance saves you money in the long run.


But, to get back on topic, Joe Biden couldn't afford Sarah Palin's shoes....
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

Brian Pedaci wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:If we inflate our tires and tune up our cars up then we do not need to drill...


Small point of contention - that suggestion was given in response to a question about what individuals can do right now to make a difference in oil consumption.

For what it's worth, Popular Mechanics ran the numbers and found he was more or less right.

Will maintaining proper tire pressures make a huge difference in the enormous amount of oil we import? No. But it can make a dent, albeit a very small one. According to the Department of Energy, underinflated tires alone cost the country more than 1.25 billion gal. of gasoline annually—roughly 1 percent of the total consumption of 142 billion gal. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, published by the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent.

We opened this discussion with Sen. Obama's assertion that we can offset the need to reopen offshore drilling—and save money at the pump—by keeping our tires inflated properly. He's right, although he's ignoring the potential for making a serious dent in natural gas production rates. You know what? I'm not running straight out to buy luxury items with the savings like I was supposed to with my incentive check. But then again, if you're reading Popular Mechanics, you already know that proper auto maintenance saves you money in the long run.


But, to get back on topic, Joe Biden couldn't afford Sarah Palin's shoes....
wow 1.42 billion barrels versus the potential of a trillion or more barrels of oil waiting to be tapped offshore and in shale ... Hey, lets keep on filling our tires with air so can keep Chavez and the Saudis in control of our economy ..... :roll: no brains no headaches :)
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

But, to get back on topic, Joe Biden couldn't afford Sarah Palin's shoes....
that should be a big red flag....
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

Hey Jim! I am with you on getting off oil... It will create a lot of jobs and help the environment... Ultimately, energy independence stops our dollars from going to places like Saudia Arabia,Venezuela and Canada :)... But, as we go through this transition, there is nothing wrong with cheap oil.. :wink:
Brian Pedaci
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Brian Pedaci »

Stephen Eisel wrote: wow 1.42 billion barrels versus the potential of a trillion or more barrels of oil waiting to be tapped offshore and in shale ... Hey, lets keep on filling our tires with air so can keep Chavez and the Saudis in control of our economy ..... :roll: no brains no headaches :)


Are you seriously suggesting there are US sources of oil that could immediately produce 1 trillion barrels of oil annually?
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

The key word was potential..
Brian Pedaci
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Brian Pedaci »

If you're talking about the shale deposits of Green River and Bakken, then there's some controversy about whether the technology exists to extract that oil profitably at today's prices, isn't there? (Crude is currently about $62/barrel - waaaay down from it's highs this summer). I thought that shale isn't currently profitable to extract for less than $80 or $90 a barrel. I'll grant that it makes more sense to subsidize that development than ethanol, though, at least until the price goes up again enough to make the oil companies take up the slack themselves.

Offshore, ANWR and other deposits don't even come close to that potential, so I'm not sure what that'll do.

Lastly, again, it was simply a way that everyone - even you! - could make a simple difference in their consumption today. It's not necessary to ridicule and mock what is an appreciable and easy measure to take, even if you think that more can be done.

I'm getting deja vu arguing this topic. Let's get back to talking about Palin's fabulous shoes.
Stephen Eisel
Posts: 3281
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm

Post by Stephen Eisel »

http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publ ... _Sheet.pdf

Yes, the price of oil shale would be expensive at first but, take a look at what happened to oil sand production cost

Production costs in Alberta’s oil sands declined by
as much as 80 percent between 1980 and 2003. Oil
shale cost reductions of 40 to 50 percent could
occur as lessons from first of a kind facilities are
learned and applied
(Figure 1)2.
�� Mining capital costs have risen with the trend
toward more mechanized mining operations. Mine
operating costs have decreased significantly as
mining efficiency has improved.
�� Rapid industry growth may tax limited resources of
skilled labor, materials, and manufacturing
facilities for retorting technologies and mining and
processing equipment, increasing costs.


It is not unreasonable to presume that oil shale would follow the same path.
Post Reply