Obama – Inflate Our Way Out of the Energy Crisis

Obama recently cited tire inflation as a major factor in fuel efficiency and encouraged eveyone to make sure their tires were inflated to the maximum to help save gasoline. Only months ago I suggested the same thing right here on Oregon Catalyst and was vilified for doing so.

Where is the outrage now that Obama has suggested the exact same thing? Did Obama steal my idea? Will all of us checking our tires really help save gas? Will people unknowingly overinflate their tires as a result of Obama’s suggestion? Will this lead to blowouts on the highway? Will people die trying to save $1.00 per tankful of fuel?

Will tires wear out faster if overinflated? What are tires made from? Petroleum, right? Will overinflating our tires then result in more oil consumption? Will drivers skid more on slick, wet surfaces due to the high inflation of their tires? Will this cause more accidents? Will we save oil because people will have wrecks and not be able to drive their cars?

How much oil is being wasted now due to tire underinflation? Are people so stupid they never knew prior to high gas prices that they should check their tires? Will people leave their cars running while they add air to their tires, thus wasting precious gasoline?

How do you add air to your tires? With a hand pump? No, you use a compressor, which runs on electricity, which in our country means oil or coal was used to provide that power. Do we contribute more to global warming by running thousands upon thousands of compressors all over the country while concerned citizens check their tire pressure?

Just how smart is Obama? He may be the smartest human being on the planet. This kind of valuable, original advice is just what this country needs to snap out of our energy crisis. Thanks Barry! You’ve sure got my vote. Pump me up!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 12:04 | Posted in Measure 37 | 112 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Jerry, you have to keep in mind how the mind of Obama works. Short on oil? Well, drilling is stupid, but tire inflation, that’s the ticket. Bad economy? Raise taxes. Clinton raised taxes and that’s the sole reason given for his supposedly great economy. Thats Obama’s plan yet again.

    Never mind that inflating tires doesn’t produce oil. Never mind that raising taxes is a less sure way of raising revenue than lowering them. Its all based upon feelings. What you feel is true, and more valid than reason. So onward and upward! Let us tax our way to prosperity. Let us inflate our tires rather than drill!

    For added vigor, should one not be inspired enough by Obama himself, try and think of the giggles and twitters that would have come from MSM if Bush had mentioned inflating tires as a viable part of the solution. Obama out of touch? Why no, he cares that’s all that matters.

    Wind, solar, hemp, that’s will to solve the energy crises. Why try unproven methods like drilling, nuclear, or cleaner coal?

  • jim karlock

    You don’t suppose Obama bought off on this Maurice Strong BS:
    “If we don’t change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” http://www.nationalreview.com/01sept97/bailey090197.html

    Thanks
    JK

  • Bob Clark

    What really seemed kooky about Nobama’s advice is he said the simple act of inflating our tires more was equivalent to all the oil the U.S would add by drilling the areas now off limits. I really doubt this because the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge itself is thought to be able to produce up to one million barrels per day, or 5% of current U.S oil consumption. For tire inflation from current levels to equal such an amount you would have to see over an 11% improvement in mileage on average just from tire inflation. I don’t think this is realistic at all. It doesn’t hurt but I think folks already have moved in this direction. We need to do everything not just keep on things like tire inflation.

    And Nobama’s scheme to tax domestic oil companies more in order to partially fund another tax rebate is another bankrupt idea. It’s popular to bash domestic oil companies but the thing most people don’t realize is big oil companies are paying over 33% of their proftis in income taxes. Hiking taxes beyond normal corporate rates may cause oil companies to relocate their headquarters outside the U.S and it will discourage domestic oil production. And it’s only a partial funding source for the Nobama’s energy rebates, the rest will have to be printed off the money presses. So, it’s inflationary too boot.

    • dean

      Bob, he equated the savings from proper tire inflation (not OVER inflation Jerry) to the amount expected to be pumped and delivered from additional off shore leases (based on Energy Services Administrations best guestimates, which is all they are). He did not include ANWR in the equation, perhaps because his opponent, John McCain also opposed drilling in ANWR, so they have no difference over that. I believe the difference is a potential IMMEDIATE 3% savings from proper tire inflation versus a potential 10-20 year down the road 1% production increase from additional off shore leasing.

      Taxing the oil companies and sending a check to Americans as relief from high gas prices makes no sense, except politically. Just like McCain’s plan to suspend the gas tax makes no sense, since the oil companies might just choose to keep the money in their pockets. Neither candidate is making much sense because all they are doing is one upping the other by promising undeliverable goodies to us. Neither is proposing serious energy policy a this point. Its because they think we are stupid enough to fall for phony measures, and based on Jerry’s post, I would say they are dead right.

      • Jerry

        Should you care to read my original post, I did not endorse over inflation. I said just a little overinflation would be best. I think that is fine. I also said you could remove the back seat, too, and had many other ideas far more creative than Obama.

        Of course, the whole article was written to help people who need help. Just like Obama. I care. What I do has meaning. How dare you think otherwise?

        One thing you said that was correct – they do really think we are all stupid. And people who support such people are, in fact, stupid. There you go.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    The projected increase in US production from new drilling is only expected to be 1%?

    Are we supposed to believe that figure or is it merely a rhetorical device? Sources please.

    Face it. If George Bush had suggested Americans deal with the current high gasoline prices by checking their tire inflation the Democrats would have drowned him out with laughter and rightly so.

    We need some actual solutions. Tire inflation, nebulous references to change and rock star gallivanting might be fine for Richard Branson or Al Gore, but they are not the sort of solutions one expects of a future president.

    Solar and wind have been tried and tried, plenty of windmills out there, solar panels have been around since most of us were children. If solar cant power Al Gores air craft carrier sized yacht or just one of his mansions I see no reason to expect its wide scale implementation any time before we are all drowned in the massive global warming floods.

    Sure, keep trying with them, if nothing else it does tend to muffle the anointed, but lets try something with more immediate results, like drilling or nuclear. We have been waiting decades for solar and wind to catch up with oil, coal and nuclear. The end of that wait is no where in sight. Why should we believe that suddenly wind and solar are on the cusp of some technological breakthrough that is only a couple of years away? Your going to all of a sudden make a better propeller? Sounds like another ethanol rat hole to me. Because of that experience, as well as others like the MTBE additive to gasoline scandal from a few years back, we should all be very wary when the greenies come at us with yet another energy fix.

    Republicans and Democrats alike were wrong to have a moratorium on offshore drilling. Its time to recognize that error. Anyone who thinks solar and wind can be improved and on line in a quicker time than proven technology like oil and coal probably hasn’t been around the development stage of new technology very much.

    • dean

      Rupert Van Winkle. The wind and solar of today are not the wind and solar of 20 or 30 years ago. Wind energy is roughly on a par with conventional forms. Far cheaper than nuclear if you do real cost accounting. The figures on what is available of shor and when it would come on line are from the Bush Administration.

      Laughing at the truth (energy savings from proper tire inflation) is not a characteristic of thinking people. There are non-thinking people on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately in this case the non-think seems to have stretched to the top of your party’s ticket.

      • retiredUOprof

        dean, your claims about the cost of wind/solar energy compared to nuclear are just nonsense.

        • dean

          Then explain to us why private utilities are presently building and/or buying wind power, but they are not investing in nuclear power. And ask yourself if there would be any chance at all for nuclear power if the Federal government did not take responsibility for insurance underwriting and waste storage.

      • Jerry

        We sure wouldn’t want to laugh at Obama – you are dead right about that. It might be racist. Plus, no one really should laugh about anything. It is very rude.

        Thanks for setting us all straight. Not sure what I would do without your most valuable advice.

        Laugh, I guess.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Rupert Van Winkle. The wind and solar of today are not the wind and solar of 20 or 30 years ago.

        Brilliant deduction Dean Van Misdirection. Do you always have to prop yourself up with condescension via non sequitar?

        Now try addressing the point please. Wind and solar have been around forever. Wonder why they haven’t replaced coal?

        If you have five minutes, perhaps you could tell us all why we should expect some sort of breakthrough in propeller design, or semi conductors any time soon? If not, possibly you could illuminate us with your knowledge of either semi conductors, or CAD-CAM design that would make you expect this design breakthrough momentarily?

        We all know those on the left have an incredibly short attention span. Iraq was a quagmire because it looked to be a war that would last longer than a year. Oil drilling will take too long and the MTV left thinks of that as infinity.

        Oh well, there is always hope. That’s it, hope and change. So, that’s what we are supposed to depend upon, this big breakthrough that is right around the corner.

        And please don’t start inane arguments about nuclear not being a possibility because no plants are being built. We all know that’s because your ilk will tie them up in court longer than the half life of the Uranium involved.

        >Laughing at the truth (energy savings from proper tire inflation) is not a characteristic of thinking people.

        No, but laughing at someone who proposes tire inflation over drilling sure is. Its kind of like when Clinton proposed bake sales to solve the national debt.

        What is truly not a characteristic of thinking people is defending something stupid based upon party affiliation. Obama said something true, but stupid. You know it and I know it. The fact that you defend it in the way you do excludes you from commentary on what the characteristics of thinking people happen to be.

        • dean

          Rupert the perpetually perturbed…

          Sorry, I’m not an engineer, but others appear to be yes…designing better propellers as you put it. Try the following for staters:

          Determination of Elastic Twist in Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) (PDF 7.8 MB)
          Authors: Stoddard, F.; Nelson, V.; Starcher, K.; Andrews, B.

          DOE Wind Program Update: June 4, 2006 (PDF 292 KB)
          Authors: Cotrell, J., Miner, L., O’Dell, K.

          Low Wind Speed Technology Phase II: Reducing Cost of Energy Through Rotor Aerodynamics Control; Global Energy Concepts, LLC. Wind Energy Program Technology Portfolio (Fact Sheet) (PDF 216 KB)
          Author: Laxson, A.

          Low Wind Speed Technology Phase II: Sweep-Twist Blade Design and Fabrication with Atmospheric Test Verification. Wind Energy Program Technology Portfolio (Fact Sheet) (PDF 244 KB)
          Authors: Ashwill, T.; Schrek, S.

          Necessity and Requirements of a Collaborative Effort to Develop a Large Wind Turbine Blade Test Facility in North America (PDF 947 KB)
          Authors: Cotrell, J.; Musial, W.; Hughes, S.

          Optical Blade Position Tracking System Test (PDF 672 KB)
          Author: Fingersh, L. J.

          Rotationally Augmented Flow Structures and Time Varying Loads on Turbine Blades: Preprint. (PDF 573 KB)
          Authors: Schreck, S. J.

          Smart Sensor System for Structural Condition Monitoring of Wind Turbines: May 30, 2002 — April 30, 2006 (PDF 1.8 MB)
          Authors: Schulz, M. J.; Sundaresan, M. J.

          Structural Testing of 9 m Carbon Fiber Wind Turbine Research Blades: Preprint. (PDF 667 KB)
          Authors: Paquette, J.; van Dam, J.; Hughes, S.,

          User’s Guide to PreComp (Pre-Processor for Computing Composite Blade Properties) (PDF 630 KB)
          Author: Bir, G. S.

          WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study: June 2000—June 2002 (Revised) (PDF 1.3 MB)
          Authors: Malcolm, D. J.; Hansen, A. C.

          The internal combustion engine has been around since the 13th century. I mean….I really miss your point as usual. The “breakthrough” we are all waiting for on wind energy already happened while you napped. Costs of electricity generation from wind are 1/5 of what they were in the 1980s, with or without the tax credits that help accelerate private investment. The Dutch are at work on a form of “giant kite wind power” that may result in electricity at 1/2 the present wind cost, but that technology is still experimental.

          Iraq was a quagmire because it was and still is, though blessedly at a less bloody level for now, though at great continuing expense. Put it this way, we could have built and deployed enough wind turbines to pay for T Boone Pickens (dang liberal he is) proposal several times over with the money we have spent to date on the Iraq war.

          I said nothing about nuclear “not being a possibility.” LTRD. I said wind energy is far cheaper than nuclear today if you do real cost accounting. Solar is not there yet cost-wise, and I did not claim it was. But it is being deployed usefully as we write back and forth uselessly. Private utilities are not building nuclear plants because they cost too much and take to long to get on line, in part yes, because no one wants to live downwind of one and in a free country people can sue. They can also sue to stop wind energy, and in some cases have done so successfully.

          “Oil drilling” in what remains of US reserves, whether it happens tomorrow (it won’t) or 10 or 20 years down the road is not very relevant short or long term because there is not enough oil left on US territory to slake our thirst. That is reality. We use 21 billion barrels of oil each and every day according to the CIA. We have nowhere near the reserves to meet that demand. An inconvenient fact we seem to want to ignore.

          Obama did not advocate tire inflation and car tuneups over drilling. He simply stated a fact that proper tire inflation and tuneups can save us more oil and money today than new off shore drilling can produce now or later on. This is a fact McCain has now agreed to after making an ass out of himself for several days.

          So no…I do not know that Obama said something stupid. It may have been politically unwise, as truth sometimes is. But the truth is never stupid….just inconvenient sometimes

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Rupert the perpetually perturbed

            Starting off with that sort of thing again? Kind of weak isn’t it? Anyhooo…….

            Perturbed? I’m not perturbed, I just have a knack for simply loving to insult people back when they insult me, like you did with the Van Winkle thing. I’m generally better at it than most and this is clearly no exception.

            In this instance I happen to know you looked up the word “perturbed” to insult me. It is not a word you would have spelled correctly. Since you never use a spell check, and it is spelled correctly, I know you were feverishly working a thesaurus trying to find something clever. I find that very amusing and can assure you, upon discovering that you had spelled it correctly and the implications of that, a perturbed visage upon my beautiful countenance would be a most inaccurate description. Entomologists will at times watch a bug writhe when pinned to a specimen board, and I view this as a similar activity. Weird I guess, but one takes joy where one can.

            >Determination of Elastic Twist in Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWTs) (PDF 7.8 MB)
            Authors: Stoddard, F.; Nelson, V.; Starcher, K.; Andrews, B……blah blah blah

            Sorry dude your Google abilities don’t impress me. My 8 year old can use Google, big deal.

            The way I view it, if you are too lazy to read what you cite and give the relevant portion, why should I bother?

            I sure hope that in whatever teaching position you are employed in, you don’t accept citations as ludicrous as what you have given here.

            >I mean….I really miss your point as usual.

            No you don’t, you simply cant refute it, that’s why you feign lack of comprehension of plain English. In fact you rarely miss my point. You comprehend, realize you cant refute, thus you feign lack of understanding. Why not just say “Gee, I was wrong”? It would sure come off as more graceful. It would provide me less entertainment though. Maybe I should learn to love you just as you are?

          • dean

            Rupert….I did not look up perturbed, but accidently spelled it right. I could have illiterated further by saying perpetually perturbed by progressives, but didn’t.

            You made a request that I take the time to explain “why we should expect some sort of breakthrough in propeller design” I give a a list of citations, and now you dismiss those as something your 8 year old could have come up with? Okay….great. Next time ask your 8 year old and leave me out. I have better things to do. If your challenge was intended to show me that I don;t know much about engineering, I could have saved you the trouble. I DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ENGINEERING. (Except Civil engineering, which I have limited but sufficient for my purposes knowledge of).

            No….I have not read those citations and have zero interest in doing so. Propeller design breakthroughs do not propell me. I design landscapes, parks, and forests, trails, not propellers, (therefore I am).

            Whether you bother to read the research or not, I don’t care. The intent was to dissuade you from making any further inane comments suggesting that no one is making any breakthroughs on propeller design, or other aspects of wind or solar energy technology. As an engineer, you ought to be embarrassed to be shown up by a landscape architect.

            No…I really did miss your point. You appeared to be dismissing solar and wind energy as old technologies, and appeared to be defending Bush-McCain policies that lock us into continued reliance on truly old technologies and energy sources that are in decline or otherwise problematic. Yet the technologies you dissed are competing with, and soon likely will eclipse the ones you appear to defend.

            So…i repeat: what is your point? That private investors (with minor tax breaks from us) should stop building wind turbines and that they stop working to develop plug in electric vehicles, and instead we should open the OCS to exploration in the *hope* (an increasingly futile hope I might add) that we can continue on with what we are doing indefinitely? That is, driving over-sized, poorly tuned personal vehicles on under inflated tires?

            Because if that is your point, then consider it refuted.

          • Jerry

            Dean – the word is alliterative – please – not what you wrote.

            Now for the important part. Everything you said about alternative forms of energy generation is moot until you explain to us how you are going to STORE the energy created by wind and solar. How, Dean??? Without storage, you have to have in place 100% traditional power sources for when the little wind stops blowing and the big sun sets. You get it???? 100% back up – at present there is NO OTHER WAY. NONE. Maybe you could help invent a really big capacitor, but so far, no one has figured out how to store this power. No one. Maybe you could string together a couple billion D cells? I am not sure, but until storage is solved this energy is only partially supplemental AT BEST.

            Maybe Obama can figure it out. He is VERY VERY smart, by his own admission.

            Man, this is so simple that you should be able to understand it. I propose you get a windmill, hook it up to your house, and disconnect from the grid. Simple, easy, clean, efficient, not a problem.

            Just do it, Dean.

            Maybe if we all pumped up our tires we could save enough oil to power the backup supplies needed for when the wind dies down. I think we could. Sure we could. WE MUST.

            Pump me up!!

          • dean

            Jerry…thanks for the gentle correction. Alliteration it is.

            Storing electricity is problematic, but fortunately smarter people than I are working this problem. One approach is using the excess power (when wind is blowing or sun shining) to create hydrogen cells. Another is thermal storage, used later to make steam.

            But there is no need to store 100% of wind and solar energy. Yes, the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. But we already have excess capacity in our electrical generating system. Every day electrical demand waxes and wanes, so the system can handle up to 10% additional variable generation with no adjustments at all needed. When you get to 20% variable you need to install some measures to manage the variations, but these are easily available, and the Europeans manage to do this with no problems I am aware of.

            If we adopt the T Boone Pickens approach, we will create better grid linkages across the country, coast to coast. If and when we dmake this investment (cost = 10 months in Iraq,) and if and when we get enough turbines and or solar arrays distributed across the nation, then when the wind is not blowing in Nebraska it will be blowing in Texas or the Dakotas or in the Rockies or California or Maine.

            So no…we do not need 100% backup. We can easily accomodate 20% of our national grid as wind and/or solar with zero storage. It will take us 10 years at least to get to that 20%. We can worry about going higher later on.

            Another point is that if we convert to a plug in hybrid car fleet, those cars can be recharging at night when the wind is blowing and we are sleeping. There is a lot of excess capacity in the grid at night. Read this link Jerry. It explains the solutions better than I can.

            http://www.nrel.gov/wind/

            Yes…Obama is very smart. That bothers you? Or his awareness of his intelligence bothers you? He should deliberately act stupid so that he can be a phony? We want a dumb yahoo as our president? No. Tried that already. Didn’t work out so well. Very expensive.

            As for me, I looked into it. I’m in a bad location for a windmill. You need an average wind speed of 9 MPH, and you want the wind blowing at or above that for more than 1/2 the days of the year. Most of the Willamette Valley lacks this amount of wind. I do have passive solar.

            Beyond that…ha ha I guess.

          • dean

            Self-correction. The US consumes 21 MILLION barrels of oils a day, not BILLION. Estimate on the lack of benefits of off shore drilling with respect to price are available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

  • Anonymous

    It doesn’t matter to the left what the increase in domestic production could amount to they are opposed. It doesn’t matter how extensive environmetal proptections are, they are opposed to it.

    Just as they are opposed to sustainable logging and the LGN terminal.

    So arguing with them over the conditions is a waste of time.

    Wyden is a good demonstrsation. He says he is attempting to delay the LGB terminal the goal of his, the governor and other democrat leaders is to stop it period. Regardless of any conditions, assurances, protections or level of taxes produced by the facility.

    It’s no, no, no.

    No to ANWAR
    No to offshore drilling
    No to on shore expansion of domestic Natural Gas, oil and coal.
    No to new refineries
    No to increased logging
    No to quarries
    No to roads and freeways
    No to proerty rights

    NO NO NO

    The details don’t matter.

    • David

      Anonymous: ANWR + Offshore drilling will only make a small increase in U.S. oil production, and then only in about 25 years:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-oil-production.html

      The EIA estimated the impact on gasoline prices to be, I think, 4 cents per gallon.

      Plus, our atmosphere does not need the additional carbon dioxide. Best to just admit the era of oil is coming to an end, and get on with a real solution.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Wait a second there, now we are up to 25 years on oil production?

        What’s up with that? I thought that you guys had at least agreed on the figure of ten years?

        Even that ten year figure isn’t ever backed up too well. With towable oil platforms, and fast track licensing, I have a very hard time seeing how drilling an oil well takes ten years. I frankly think the ten year figure is made up. I know the 25 year figure is.

        >Plus, our atmosphere does not need the additional carbon dioxide.

        Why? You just got through saying there was essentially very little oil. I mean if its only going to affect things by 4 cents sure sound like there isn’t much. So its pretty hard to argue if its a negligible amount that it is going to put anything but a negligible amount of CO2 out right? Hard to have it both ways.

        And hey wait a second, I mean if there is only a negligible amount of oil, then why the objection to drilling for all these years? Wasn’t the argument for not allowing off shore drilling the horrible environmental degradation that would follow? What’s up with that? Now all of a sudden the argument is there isn’t much oil there? What was the environmental degradation supposed to have come from then? Dry Wells? I’m supposed to believe this?

        • dean

          Rupert…not “you guys.” The Federal Department of Energy. Under the Bush Adminsitration. In their analysis:

          “The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). *Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant* .”

          Okay…2030 minus 2008 adds up to 22, not 25 years. First production in 9 years. Insiginificant impact on price. Go inflate your tires and deflate your ego.

      • Ted Kennedy’s Liver

        How wrong do your “facts” have to be and how full of it (and yourself) do you have to be to cite your own blog as a reference source? As full of it as David Appel, I guess.

  • Anonymous

    “would not have a “””significant””” impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

    That’s entirely subjective and presumptious.

    Any lenghty time for leasing and production is due to the left’s chronic delaying and obstruction to any fast tracking.

    You’re also leaving out the tremendous Natural Gas potential that also requires far less drilling.

    All of those assumptions of slow to produce and little impact are in the context of the obstructions fanatic liberals throw up at every juncture.

    Just like with logging and LGN terminal oppostion.

    There’s not a shred of truth to it taking 9 years for first production of any new off shore oil and gas and the price for both wuld be nearly immedaitely impacted if liberals stopped their insanity.

    • dean

      Yes… *subjective* by relying on the Department of Energy analysis and *presumptious by presuming* they base their analysis on data, not wishful thinking.

      Natural Gas is left out because the post and subsequent posts are about cars, which are not powered by natural gas. Duh.

      The time frame is due to: the leasing process, the need to explore, the need to find, and the need to develop the resource. The initial obstruction (Florida) was put there by George Bush the first, suported later by his governor son and George the second. Fanatic liberals the lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    What a nut dean.

    Some do, but we would have far more vehicles running on CNG if it were not for your loony left.

    Our own TriMet has only 6 buses running on Natural Gas.
    That’s what we get with fanatic liberals.

    The obstruction to using, exploring, extracting, piping and refining fossil fuels is overwhelming the left and their enviro extremism you endorse.
    Your pathetic spinning attempt at diverting blame to Republicans is a hoot.

    Your loony left bogs down the process exactly how they are with the LGN terminal. it’s all ready to go and Kulongoski, Wyden and Wu are attempting to block it by having a repeat process and more environmental study. Every conceavable concern for that project has been addressed and paid for in the proposal.

    Your liberal fanatics are blind deaf and dumb to reason.

  • Steve

    I Brazil is a model for living without oil?

    Last Updated: August 8, 2008 04:00 EDT
    “Brazil and India were the biggest users of offshore oil rigs in July
    as Petroleo Brasileiro SA drilled the Americas’ biggest discovery in three decades and Reliance Industries Ltd. started developing a coastal field.
    Brazil deployed 29 rigs, the most in 21 years”

    Well isn’t that interesting?

    I have to wonder what their liberals are saying?

    That it’ll take 20 years and not help?

    I guess Brazil is just stupid?

    The US could be producing far more domestic oil and natural gas resources if our left could be stopped from blocking any and all efforts to do so.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=ahX8ms64W2sU&refer=latin_america
    Brazil, India Lead Users of Offshore Oil Rigs in July (Update1)

    By Dinakar Sethuraman
    Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) — Brazil and India were the biggest users of offshore oil rigs in July as Petroleo Brasileiro SA drilled the Americas’ biggest discovery in three decades and Reliance Industries Ltd. started developing a coastal field.
    Brazil deployed 29 rigs, the most in 21 years, and India, the largest user of rigs in the Asia-Pacific, ordered 28, adding two since June, Baker Hughes Inc., the world’s third- biggest oilfield-services provider, said on its Web site today. The countries accounted for 18 percent of equipment used to drill in waters internationally, excluding the U.S. and Canada.
    Benchmark crude prices, which reached a record $147.27 a barrel in New York, have sparked increased exploration efforts from the Gulf of Mexico to the Indian Ocean. Oil companies including Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc are hiring vessels to plumb the seafloor for untapped reserves.
    The offshore rig count in Asia Pacific rose by 13 percent from a year earlier while in Latin America, the number increased 6.7 percent to 80, the Baker Hughes report showed. Asia Pacific and Latin America deployed 211 rigs last month, or about 68 percent of equipment used to drill in waters globally, excluding the U.S. and Canada.
    Increased exploration spending has tripled rental rates and kept deep-water rigs operating near capacity for two years, according to information posted on the Web site of Transocean Inc., the world’s largest offshore driller. The average fee for Transocean’s most advanced deepwater rig jumped 35 percent from a year earlier to $390,400 a day.
    Transocean’s Rentals
    Varun Shipping Co., an Indian carrier of oil and gas that counts BP Plc among its clients, may spend $300 million this year to buy three so-called deep-water anchor handlers to aid in offshore exploration, Yudhishthir Khatau, the company’s managing director, said in an interview yesterday in Mumbai.
    Rising equipment rentals have helped boost earnings at Houston-based Transocean. The company’s profit for the three months ended June increased for the eighth quarter in a row. Transocean announced $6.45 billion in contract extensions and new leases during the April-to-June period for vessels hired by Mumbai-based Reliance Industries Ltd., BP and Petroleo Brasileiro.
    The Brazilian explorer signed a $3.05 billion deal last month with Transocean to rent four of the company’s rigs through 2016.
    Reliance Industries plans to start production from a gas discovery on India’s east coast. The field will produce the equivalent of 44 percent of India’s current output when it starts this year.
    The international rig count, excluding the U.S. and Canada, last month stood at 1,092, compared with 1,102 in June and 1,018 in July 2007, Baker Hughes said.
    The drilling services provider has published the rotary rig counts since 1944, when Hughes Tool Co. began weekly counts of U.S. and Canadian drilling activity, the Web site said. The monthly international rig count started in 1975.
    To contact the reporter on this story: Dinakar Sethuraman in Singapore at [email protected].
    Last Updated: August 8, 2008 04:00 EDT

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: doa ulang tahun untuk diri sendiri()

  • Pingback: signifikan adalah()

  • Pingback: pengertian komunitas()

  • Pingback: pengertian keterampilan()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian komunitas()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: perbedaan demokrasi langsung dan tidak langsung()

  • Pingback: jodoh dalam islam()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: manfaat keberagaman budaya()

  • Pingback: pay4you()

  • Pingback: go karts for kids()

  • Pingback: signifikan adalah()

  • Pingback: contoh karangan()

  • Pingback: tata cara sholat berjamaah()

  • Pingback: pengertian demonstrasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian dokumentasi()

  • Pingback: jodoh dalam islam()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: pengertian bukan penduduk()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: dampak kenakalan remaja()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk()

  • Pingback: pengertian estetika()

  • Pingback: contoh qiyas()

  • Pingback: dampak kenakalan remaja()

  • Pingback: tata cara sholat berjamaah()

  • Pingback: pengertian eksistensi()

  • Pingback: roshe thea()

  • Pingback: test()

  • Pingback: clash of clans pc()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: Eddie Yan()

  • Pingback: go here()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: inmotion hosting review()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: Prediksi Lengkap()

  • Pingback: i want to buy an essay()

  • Pingback: custom writing service order custom essay term paper()

  • Pingback: discover more()

  • Pingback: read this()

  • Pingback: discover more()

  • Pingback: buy a reflective essay()

  • Pingback: best cheap hair extensions()

  • Pingback: buy cause and effect essay()

  • Pingback: cute designer comforters()

  • Pingback: cute comforters sets()

  • Pingback: cute comforters()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: cute chevron comforters()

  • Pingback: check my site()

  • Pingback: sturdee residence price()

  • Pingback: cute girly comforters()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: cute hipster comforters()

  • Pingback: find out more()

  • Pingback: cute comforters for twin beds()

  • Pingback: cute baby comforters()

  • Pingback: read more()

  • Pingback: cute beachy comforters()

  • Pingback: discover more here()

  • Pingback: maillot serie a 2016()

  • Pingback: maillot de France euro 2016()

  • Pingback: cute chevron comforters()

  • Pingback: visit these guys()

  • Pingback: cute toddler girl comforters()

  • Pingback: cute down comforters()

  • Pingback: cute unique bed comforters()

  • Pingback: cute brown comforters()

  • Pingback: cute comforters for queen size bed()

  • Pingback: cute comforters ikea()

  • Pingback: cute unique bed comforters()

  • Pingback: cute comforters pinterest()

  • Pingback: Red Stick Notary Public()

  • Pingback: clash royale astuce gemme gratuit()

  • Pingback: cccam server()

  • Pingback: viagra online()

  • Pingback: look at this web-site()

  • Pingback: click for source()

  • Pingback: helpful resources()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)