It’s hard to imagine someone less deserving of the vitriolic hate that has been Bush’s lot for eight years. The level of vicious slander and libel directed his way is truly staggering.

As a person who has lost a family member in this war (so can it, lefties), I say unequivocally that Bush is a good man, and has done far more good for this country than bad.

I only hope history is kinder to him than the present has been, and that we do not give up on all he has fought for, in a conflict that is truly for our very existence.

Chakra Hammer on June 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Sorry I took so long to get back to you.

But FYI.. OCS for Federal/BLM is usually the start of the API numbers and that generally doesn’t mean that they are Offshore. At times, and in many cases, they are onshore! Especially here in Alaska.

If you don’t believe me, please ask TexasJew who will back me up. I hate dealing with Federal/BLM because they are slower then molasses on the north Slope at -50. I.E. they are always in stand still mode.

The Dems have blocked & will continue to block every effort to reduce the price of gas, because they know that most Americans are stupid enough to blame everything on the President.

jgapinoy on June 18, 2008 at 1:13 PM

…and the oil companies.

If speculators are to blame for some of the increase and I do believe that is the case it is due to projections of a supply/demand curve failing come 2015. right now we have enough oil. the problem is when you run the numbers of increasing demand from China, India, russia, and Brazil among others in the coming decade then the supply will not be there.

Do to this the speculators are betting that the price will go up which it will. How do you solve this problem you change the supply side of the equation by 2015.

thus if the USa begins drilling and finding oil the speculators will NOT bid up the price because there will be plenty of supply coming into the market to met demand.

Therefore we can drill our way out of the problem and opening up drilling will impact the price today.

If we also start keep working on electric cars, nuclear power plants, solar, wind, biofuels, and hydrogen that will also impact the supply of oil in the fututre and the price will come down.

What will make this problem worse is if the dems are sucessful in restricting supply, decreasing profit margins and incentives to bring oil to market. then all bets are off and $10-12 gas/gal is a distinct possibility.

This is why it is not a good time to be in the market. If the reps lose this fight the economy will go into a massive depression caused by high energy usage.

Once we demonstrate some resolve on the issue based on the points President Bush listed (and adding coal, natural gas, and nuclear power into the mix), it wouldn’t surprise me if the oil-rich ME states began to produce more or release more into the market because some competition for the petrodollars was coming on board.

Surely alternatives will continue to be researched, but the viability of these energy sources may be just as far or further off as producing and refining the fuels that we now have at our disposal.

(actually only 2 whole sets got 87, 90, 92, the “coastal/inner city blend” would need to be a compromise made by the environmental groups) come on pick one..

Well, I really don’t see a problem with having the 92 octane(however it’s really not necessary for more vehicles), but just make it so that the “blend” of 92 octane is the same from state to state thats wht i;m talking about, thats not the way that it currently is.. we have so many blends now that its crazy.

True enough, Chakra. One of the bigger bottlenecks to our already strained refining capacity is the need to produce the so-called “boutique” blends of gasoline. California is absofreakinglutely insane with this stuff. The Fed EPA has not helped by declaring areas of California over emissions limits they’ve set eons ago. Ergo, we have literally lost count of the different blends of gas needed for a particular region. CalEPA? You’d think since they want to believe Fed law doesn’t apply here, they would at least try to ameliorate the problem- smooth it over a bit. Uh, yeah. We’re talking about a hangover from the bad old Jerry Brown days. Now, other states are beginning to feel their oats- this problem isn’t over. Not by a long shot.

Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Well, I really don’t see a problem with having the 92 octane(however it’s really not necessary for more vehicles), but just make it so that the “blend” of 92 octane is the same from state to state thats wht i;m talking about, thats not the way that it currently is.. we have so many blends now that its crazy.

Have say 87, 90, and 92 only 6 blends..(87, 90 and 92 or warm environments and 87, 90 and 92 for cold environments.. during the summer it could go down to just the 3 blends)

I think they can also get rid of 3 grades of gas and go with just one.

My theory: 90 Octane.

Older cars, like mine, will run just fine on it. Newer cars will need a simple adjustment to the computer, if required at all, since they recommend 92 octane and most have fuel injection that ajusts the flow due to engine requirements. 3 times the ammount of gas. Easily double the ammount of ethanol, 10% required vice 13%, 11% or 8%.

Mazztek on June 18, 2008 at 2:18 PM

OK- lessee if I can answer this one intelligently :)-

I don’t know how old your car is, but if it was built after 1980, 87 octane should do just fine. Most- but not all-
cars sold in the US can at least tolerate the stuff because of devices like knock and oxygen sensors. Some cars need the higher octane because of compression ratios, combustion chamber design, or simply, because of performance requirements. The higher octane permits faster combustion- quite literally, more explosion. Ethanol tends to slow this process down rather a lot. That’s why you need more ethanol
per process to do the same work as gasoline. Ethanol does a fair job as a fuel stretcher, but it’s sorta like adding water to a 3/4 full glass of iced tea- you still have tea, but the flavor isn’t quite as strong. Now- you mention adjustment to the computer (or, as us geeks in auto electricals call them, modules). The various sensors that a modern engine carries all play a role in how that 87 octane works. In short, they all tell the module to dial up or dial back the spark timing for various reasons- one of the major ones being prevention of pre-detonation, which can severely damage an engine if allowed to go unchecked, especially with the low-grade that 87 is. You’re also correct that all cars now have fuel injection- the level of emissions control needed today is simply impossible with a carburetor. Having said all that, I will agree up to a point that we could slim down to two grades of fuel: 87 for us plebes, 92 (or perhaps up to say 97) for the few cars that do need it. The one thing to remember is in order to make that higher grade fuel, you need more oil, most especially in a post-tetraethyl lead world.

pro-drilling
pro-OCS drilling
pro-refinery construction
anti-boutique blends
anti-octane simplification (Mazztek!)

If they’re going to “cut down” on octane blends, you know they’ll cut off high octane, and while that shiny new Corvette may actually run on 88 octane, it will develop less power and WORSE GAS MILEAGE.

AND I’ll have to buy new computers for BOTH of my cars, along with scads of other people, and some cars will have to be replaced – you’re basically going to spend more than you’d save.

LEAVE MAH DAMNED OCTANE ALONE!!!

Yeah, most people use regular, but I’m tired of always being the one that’s told “no more soup for you!” One of those silly “freedom” things, we already have enough people imposing their preferences on others.

Heck, I can’t even get 93 around here, and 92 is marginal.

I’m going to have to start carrying Jerry-cans of Toluene around.

* For observers on the ground with eye-level at h = 5 ft 7 in (5.583 ft), the horizon appears at a distance of 2.89 miles.

* For observers standing on a hill or tower 100 ft in height, the horizon appears at a distance of 12.25 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

The U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as defined by the Federal government consists of the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States’ jurisdiction and the seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is defined under accepted principles of international law. Generally, the OCS begins 3-9 nautical miles from shore (depending on the state) and extends 200 nautical miles outward, or farther if the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles. Figure 2 shows the extent of the U.S. OCS. The Federal Government administers the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed of the OCS.

OCS… I assume you are talking about Offshore?

Offshore is kind of a bastard, of sorts. Federal Regualtions have been in place for a while concerning drilling offshore. The Florida and Cuba issues has popped up the last couple of years as more and more people learned about it. But it is something about Castro being a turd and the U.S. and Cuba split where they are closest down the middle… but these two did not make any type of agreement if they would drill because of Carter and the fact that offshore wasn’t viably returnable. Here is a good Link.

Newt is giving me a headache.. he is also weirding me out. I kind of wonder if he is doing this to possibly run in 2012. Something isn’t right about why he is trying to stay in the spot light.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM

This is the definition of OCS..

http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/ocs/index.cfm

For refining, I’d add one more condition: an end to state formulations for gasoline.

Yep, we have to many boutique blends to gasoline..

Good points by the President.. all would help.

We also have TONS of coal.. :}

Might work, never know! {Has always worked before}

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Fixed it.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:48 PM

He’s selling books. And you might be right about 2012. Thanks for the link. That article is over two years old which supports my point that this is not a new issue. Note the Republican senators were trying to do business with Castro, not lift the U.S. ban. Dumb. It’s NIMBY on a national scale.

I agree with the Dems, and most thoughtful people

I’ve found that, I too, only agree with thoughtful people. I plan to join with a Dem friend in selling thoughtfulness offsets.

BTW the Dems wil not do anything to improve the economy, or much else, before the election. They would consider anything to help as a vote for McCain.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM

OCS… I assume you are talking about Offshore?

Offshore is kind of a bastard, of sorts. Federal Regualtions have been in place for a while concerning drilling offshore. The Florida and Cuba issues has popped up the last couple of years as more and more people learned about it. But it is something about Castro being a turd and the U.S. and Cuba split where they are closest down the middle… but these two did not make any type of agreement if they would drill because of Carter and the fact that offshore wasn’t viably returnable. Here is a good Link.

Newt is giving me a headache.. he is also weirding me out. I kind of wonder if he is doing this to possibly run in 2012. Something isn’t right about why he is trying to stay in the spot light.

upinak on June 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM

I’m familiar with his ANWR record — at least since 2000. But what about the OCS? I don’t remember the Republicans ever making an issue out of that before. It seems to me they’re taking their lead from Newt on this.

Was John McCain one of them? That won’t bode well.

Spolitics on June 18, 2008 at 5:23 PM

If you are curious. Got to the Library of Congress and type in ANWR for a search. Go back as far as you can… it will usually show who voted for what concerning what bill or ammendment on what year. If I remember right McCain use to be PRO drilling, way back when.

aero on June 18, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Was John McCain one of them? That won’t bode well.