# Yareeka OIL, OIL, OIL



## Bore.224

Check this out http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... MUPL60.DTL

I recently heard this story that Canada has tons of oil! We have the technology to extract it and I dont know what we are waiting for. We can cut out the middle east or at least drive their prices way down. Forget the Hybrids we got plenty of oil. However I hear that China has their sights set on this oil source so we better get in on it fast. Whats your take on this?


----------



## seabass

Bore.224 said:


> Forget the Hybrids we got plenty of oil.


Why forget the Hybrids?

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/259291.html


----------



## Bore.224

Because I love gas guzzling ground shaking horsepower. The growl of a pushrod V-8 Just make me Smile.


----------



## arctic plainsman

From what I saw last October in Saskatchewan, Canada is ramping up extraction. 
I just read an article about new production being done by wildcat'ers in Belize, and Shell oil is interested in off shore production here in Bristol Bay. My thought was that no matter who ends up with the end product, China, the US, or others, an increased supply would lower the demand and price. In Dillingham, we're paying $4.41 at the pump for gas and $3 something for fuel oil. 
I'm inclined to disagree a little with the American affinity for big horsepower. I certainly don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I hope that as a society we move toward more economical transportation, and decrease our dependance on petroleum products. I don't think I'll sell my Ford straight six cylinder, but I am intersted in buying a four cylinder pickup for my daily driver.


----------



## adokken

Take a look at Colorado Oil Shale, we can do it here.


----------



## Bobm

Adokken, thats correct but maybe we should use theirs first. And hold ours in reserve, but we sure as heck should be moving forward on the technology to extract it efficiently.

Arctic Plainsman I agree with the obvious point if we all started driving 4 cylinder cars and trucks that would drastically cut our demand for oil, and at least 95% of the time thats all we need.

I have a Toyota tacoma 2.4 liter inline 4 cyl that will get at least 24 mpg with 1000lb pump in the back at 75 mph. I always thought I needed a big powerful truck until I started driving this thing. Now I know better, and so far anyway 150,000 miles with absolutely no service problems at all, not one. My f 350s were constanty needing something fixed.

Toyota rocks!


----------



## seabass

Bobm said:


> ... and at least 95% of the time thats all we need.


and that might even by an under-estimation... Speaking of Toyotas, my parent drive a Prius and I think they will never drive a different car again.


----------



## Bobm

I still think big trucks and big vehicles should be allowed but there might be some logic in figureing out a way to keep people from using them for just basic transportation.

I hate the idea of having the dunces in congress doing this though.


----------



## seabass

Bobm said:


> I still think big trucks and big vehicles should be allowed but there might be some logic in figureing out a way to keep people from using them for just basic transportation.


I have a feeling high-prices at the pump will do just that.

I drive a "big vehicle" for pulling a boat and other mostly rare occasions when I need 4WD... other than that, its a small car. I agree that big trucks should be allowed for sure...


----------



## Gohon

I think arctic plainsman is correct in that our demand for high horse power vehicles is off the scale. In 1989 I bought one of the first Dodge trucks with the Cummins engine. IIRC it was something like 160 HP but produced 400 foot pounds of torque. It would carry or pull anything I desired and despite being a 4X4 it still got 20 MPG. Today the Diesel trucks are running somewhere around 400 HP with over 600 foot pounds of torque and for what reason? Because someone wants to be bigger and meaner than the next guy. No one needs that much torque and power in a pickup truck. And, they get less mileage than the older vehicles. Higher prices at the pump isn't going to slow the demand by much if any at all. We just had a 100% jump in one year with no slowing down. The Hybrids are proving useful only in city driving and aren't any better than the next vehicle on the road when on freeways and open roads. To my way of think the Europeans are beating the crap out of us with Diesel technology and we should take a look at that. If a Volkswagen Jetta can run 70-75 mph down the highway and still get 45 mpg, were missing out on something.


----------



## seabass

> Higher prices at the pump isn't going to slow the demand by much if any at all. We just had a 100% jump in one year with no slowing down.


Is that true? Although I don't have any stats on hand, I'm quite sure that the American sales of SUVs is way down from just a few years ago... in part, because of high gas prices.



> The Hybrids are proving useful only in city driving and aren't any better than the next vehicle on the road when on freeways and open roads.


That's not true. The prius gets 50 mpg 55 mph down the open road...~43 mpg going 70...this is based off personal observation (and the on-board mpg consumption gauge).


----------



## Bobm

I agree this horsepower race is stupid and meaningless unfortunately most people are so stupid that high horsepower numbers impress them. The reality is that those numbers are at RPM ranges no one in their right mind would run their vehicle. Car ads sell to the stupid and the horny. They either show some idiot climbing a pile of rocks, spinning donuts on a salt flat, going like hell on a mountain road ect. or some bimbo with her charms showing. They almost never talk about technical features of the vehicle.

Gohons correct also, the Germans make extremely fuel efficient diesels and so do the japanese. The honda accord diesel get approx 70 mpg yet we cannot get it here, primairly due to marketing decisions and high sulfur diesel which I believe the japs are unwillg to modiy their vehicle to handle and meet our emmision standards.

I would buy a diesel accord in a heartbeat if they sold them here.

The Germans make fuel efficient cars but their quality control is poor, VW has one of the lowest customer satifaction of any manufacturer


----------



## Bobm

This is what Gohon is referring to I think......

Consumer Reports: Overstating gas mileage

07:22 AM CDT on Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Consumer Reports

When shopping for a new car, the gas mileage is a top priority these days. Automakers' mileage predictions are based on lab tests like the ones conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Cars are strapped onto a machine called a dynamometer. It turns the front wheels while a computer directs the driver to speed up and slow down.

Consumer Reports just analyzed the fuel economy data of every vehicle it has tested in the last five years. CR's Kim Kleman says this analysis reveals the mileage for 90 percent of the vehicles is overstated.

"The EPA tests don't correspond to the way most of us drive," Kleman said. "Their tests represent driving on a 75-degree day on a road with no curves or no hills, which is ideal for maximizing fuel economy."

The EPA tests haven't changed in 30 years, so they don't take into account today's driving conditions. There's a lot more congestion, idling in traffic, and widespread use of air conditioning.

Consumer Reports runs its own fuel economy tests. The engineers say these tests-done outdoors-give a much more accurate assessment of the actual mileage you'll get from a car.

Consumer Reports' tests often turn up results that are substantially different from the EPA's-especially for stop-and-go city driving.

For instance the EPA says you'll get 22 miles per gallon with a Jeep Liberty diesel, but Consumer Reports found you'll get just half that-11 miles per gallon.

With a Chrysler 300 C, the EPA says you'll get 17 miles per gallon, but Consumer Reports' tests get only 10.

As for a Honda Odyssey minivan, the EPA gets 20 miles per gallon; Consumer Reports gets just 12.

*The differences Consumer Reports turned up with hybrids in city driving are even greater. The EPA says the Honda Civic hybrid gets 48 miles per gallon; Consumer Reports measured just 26. *

"Newer cars tend to overstate the mileage more than older ones," Kleman said, "so the discrepancy between what you're promised and what you're getting seems to be growing."

Consumer Reports says with skyrocketing gas prices, that's a trend that's more troubling than ever.


----------



## Gohon

The Prius may very well have demonstrated the mileage you indicated but you did say that was using the onboard computer which are notorious for giving misleading information. The computer measure throttle position and not gallons in the tank or gallons consumed. Try doing it the old fashion way with pen and paper and you will see the difference. Reading a article the other day out of Seattle there was this statement...... "The City of Seattle operates a fleet of 150 Prius cars and gets an average real world mileage of 41 mpg". Put a family of four and a couple suit cases in that car and watch the mileage go south. But, as I said for commuting and city driving they are great. Hell my wife's ten year old Honda Accord averages 27-28 in town and will get 34 on a trip. I'm not saying the Hybrids aren't a good idea, just that they are not the only answer. We need the Hybrids, the fuel cells, more oil , alternative fuels and anything else we can come up with. I can't think of any reason why Detroit can't come up with fuel efficient six cylinder engine with plenty of power for the average truck owner or four cylinder for the average consumer, except that we the public are always wanting something bigger. Every time I drive my wife's car I have to really watch it because before I know it I'm clipping down the road at 80 mph and it is a four cylinder.


----------



## Gun Owner

The big problem with the hybrids is on a long road trip, once your batteries have depleted climbing grades you are climbing the likes of Vail pass in CO with an anemic 4 cylinder. Also, once you get into hot areas, and the A/C kicks on, the engine has to run to run the A/C compressor. Hybrids have their place, as commuter vehicles in mild climates. I think even heat requires firing the gasoline motor to work.

As far as Consumer Reports and the mileage of the diesels, its a well known fact amongst diesel lovers that they take a long time to break in compared to a gasoline powered car, and untill they are broken in, the mileage sucks. Something Im sure CR didnt bother mentioning. I've spent a lot of time researching the diesel Liberty, as I want an American made diesel to replace my Ford Focus Wagon. Buyers report signifigantly improved mileage after 20-30k miles. A lot of miles for folks who trade in every few years, but not alot for a person like me that expects to get a minimum 100k service life from as large an investment as a new car. At the moment, the Liberties are my only option, but the 2007 ULS fuels should allow more currently made diesels to come to the us, like the diesel Focus and Ranger, as well as other diesel ideas not being shelved, such as the F-150 with the V-6 powerstroke they were contemplating for an 06 model.


----------



## seabass

Gohon said:


> The City of Seattle operates a fleet of 150 Prius cars and gets an average real world mileage of 41 mpg". .


I don't see a problem here.

I would bet some $$ that the prius gets 50 mpg going 55 mpg even with paper and pencil. I'll ask my them to do so and get back to you...


----------



## seabass

Gun Owner said:


> The big problem with the hybrids is on a long road trip, once your batteries have depleted climbing grades you are climbing the likes of Vail pass in CO with an anemic 4 cylinder. Also, once you get into hot areas, and the A/C kicks on, the engine has to run to run the A/C compressor. Hybrids have their place, as commuter vehicles in mild climates. I think even heat requires firing the gasoline motor to work.


Sorry, and I'm not getting kickbacks from toyota here, but...

I believe the engine ALWAYS runs the A/C (at least in the prius). It does effect mileage some.

*Most *people are RARELY in situations where there are climbing up hill long enough that it would run down their batteries...seems to me that when you are driving in the Rockies that you go up... and then down... discharge on the way up, charge on the way down... no?

I've never read anyting in the consumer reports about (okay, just the prius here) having problems in hot weather. maybe i missed it though.


----------



## Gun Owner

Yes, the engine always has to be running to run the A/C. Im sorry if my thoughts werent as clear as my foggy head thought they were.

Regarding long grades, Untill you've drivin I-70 through CO, you have no idea what a long grade is like. On the east side, you are literally climbing grade non stop from denver to the Eisenhower Tunnel. My lil Focus has a helluva time climbing that hill at speed with a full load. I can manage 75, but thats it. I've got no real world experience with the Prius, but Im a pretty well versed car guy, and untill I see otherwise Im betting by the time you reached that tunnel you'd be running on gas power alone, especially if it was summer and you had the A/C on.

Agreed, most people have no problem with this. The biggest problem I'd have is the A/C issue in town. I live in Vegas, and as such theres only about 3 months out of the year when the A/C is forgotten about. If I lived further North, I'd seriously consider an Escape hybrid. But as such, with the hot climate of Las Vegas, combined with a minimum of Bi-annual trips to Longmont, CO to visit my wifes family, I need a standard oil burning automobile. Im hoping for a diesel Explorer, or some other mid size wagon. But even though my current Focus is getting a bit small, I'd gladly deal with the space issue if a diesel version were available.


----------



## seabass

Gun Owner said:


> Yes, the engine always has to be running to run the A/C. Im sorry if my thoughts werent as clear as my foggy head thought they were.
> 
> Regarding long grades, Untill you've drivin I-70 through CO, you have no idea what a long grade is like. On the east side, you are literally climbing grade non stop from denver to the Eisenhower Tunnel. My lil Focus has a helluva time climbing that hill at speed with a full load. I can manage 75, but thats it. I've got no real world experience with the Prius, but Im a pretty well versed car guy, and untill I see otherwise Im betting by the time you reached that tunnel you'd be running on gas power alone, especially if it was summer and you had the A/C on.
> 
> Agreed, most people have no problem with this. The biggest problem I'd have is the A/C issue in town. I live in Vegas, and as such theres only about 3 months out of the year when the A/C is forgotten about. If I lived further North, I'd seriously consider an Escape hybrid. But as such, with the hot climate of Las Vegas, combined with a minimum of Bi-annual trips to Longmont, CO to visit my wifes family, I need a standard oil burning automobile. Im hoping for a diesel Explorer, or some other mid size wagon. But even though my current Focus is getting a bit small, I'd gladly deal with the space issue if a diesel version were available.


will you just go to bed, I'm tired of arguing!! :beer:

I hear you on the I-80 example...  I guess I am living in the Red River Valley.


----------



## Gun Owner

Im sitting here reading your A/C comment, and I think I missed your point. Your suggesting that A/C being on kills mileage be it gas or hybrid, and you are 100% correct. The difference is that in town, the biggest gas saver is the ability to completely kill off the gas engine, and run around on the batteries alone. In stop and go traffic, idling the engine is completely eliminated. With the A/C on, you end up getting about the same mileage as you would with the regular gas engine. If it is better, its not by much, and certainly not enough for fuel savings to offset the huge price increase of a hybrid over a standard automobile.


----------



## Gun Owner

Its only 9:30 here, I dont go to bed for a lil while yet....

As for Arguing, I didnt think we were? Like I said in my above post, I think I just muddled your point in my head  It happens, I had a few cold Hefeweizens with dinner :beer:


----------



## seabass

Gun Owner said:


> Im sitting here reading your A/C comment, and I think I missed your point. Your suggesting that A/C being on kills mileage be it gas or hybrid, and you are 100% correct. The difference is that in town, the biggest gas saver is the ability to completely kill off the gas engine, and run around on the batteries alone. In stop and go traffic, idling the engine is completely eliminated. With the A/C on, you end up getting about the same mileage as you would with the regular gas engine. If it is better, its not by much, and certainly not enough for fuel savings to offset the huge price increase of a hybrid over a standard automobile.


I agree... and I didn't mean arguing in the sense of being angry! Just "discussing"... (now go to bed :lol: )


----------



## Gun Owner

Nah, but I think I'm gonna have another beer....

Maybe Militant Tiger will jump on and tell us he gets 80 mpg with his Prius and I can have some fun


----------



## Bobm

Even if diesels break in slower which I doubt (I don't see any reason they would) at their worst they get better mileage than gas engines. Fuel efficieny is a function of compression ratio and engine size. It doesn't take a lots of power to run a full size car down the road less than 50 hp at steady state cruise. A turbo charged diesel makes a small engine large and strong for acceleration and then when the boost drops the small engine gets good fuel economy.

A diesel jetta or bug gets over 40 mpg from the get go, still very good compared to anything else available.

And take a look at the Dodge Diamler ChryslerSprinter van 10 passenger , 5000lb towing capability and a 2.8 liter turbo diesel. And they accelerate very nicely. An engine layout like that would easily handle 99% of drivers needs and get 25 mpg or better. Thats probably double the average pickup and SUV that america produces. And our car manufactures wonder why they are closing plants :eyeroll:


----------



## Bore.224

Bobm said:


> I agree this horsepower race is stupid and meaningless unfortunately most people are so stupid that high horsepower numbers impress them. The reality is that those numbers are at RPM ranges no one in their right mind would run their vehicle. Car ads sell to the stupid and the horny. They either show some idiot climbing a pile of rocks, spinning donuts on a salt flat, going like hell on a mountain road ect. or some bimbo with her charms showing. They almost never talk about technical features of the vehicle.
> 
> Gohons correct also, the Germans make extremely fuel efficient diesels and so do the japanese. The honda accord diesel get approx 70 mpg yet we cannot get it here, primairly due to marketing decisions and high sulfur diesel which I believe the japs are unwillg to modiy their vehicle to handle and meet our emmision standards.
> 
> I would buy a diesel accord in a heartbeat if they sold them here.
> 
> The Germans make fuel efficient cars but their quality control is poor, VW has one of the lowest customer satifaction of any manufacturer


Guess I am stupid , I love muclecars ,drag races , and riping throught the gears on a curvy road. I love sharp looking cars with lots of charactor and charm,. And yeah I guess I am horney cause I like my woman the same way. I would never be caught driving an ugly Hybrid that is like driving a computer or dating a girl that looks like Rosie Odonnell.


----------



## Bobm

If you can't distinguish the difference between the point I'm was making and what you are insinuating I made then yes I agree with you....

You are stupid!

And "ripping through the gears" on a curvy public road confirms it

keep that nonsense on the track before you kill some innocent person.

Race cars have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing and no impact on the nations consumption of fuel. Thats the problem with discussions on here they alway go on some idiotic tangent.


----------



## buckseye

They have been getting oil out of shale for years it is not a new technology. Although open pit mining of it might be far fetched.

Geothermal is working very good around El Centro CA and would work anywhere if needed.


----------



## Gun Owner

Bobm said:


> Even if diesels break in slower which I doubt (I don't see any reason they would)


They do! Gas Engines typically are really broken in at about 10k miles. Thats when all the clearances are open, and the motor is no longer considered "tight". Diesel engines on the other hand, can take upwards of 20-30k miles to really be considered broken in.

Diesels have tighter tolerances in regards to piston and ring fit, stronger rings, and the fuel is a lubricant, all of which are reasons that slow their break in. The bearings are larger, and there is a LOT more oil going through the system on a diesel. Just the volumn of oil a diesel carries effects break in, as 10 qts of oil will contaminate a lot slower than 5 qts in a similar sized engine. Also, diesels are required to use a higher grade, low sulfer motor oil that is signifigantly better than the standard motor oil cars use.

For what its worth, Im a certified diesel mechanic, and I build hotrods for a hobby. I'm neck deep in cars more often than Im not. But you really dont have to take my word for it, check out some diesel forums, like the CRD forum at www.jeepforum.com or www.thedieselstop.com and see for yourself.

All of that break-in discussion aside, Im 100% in agreement with you that more readily available diesels in a wider range of cars is definately a good way to go. Obviously if everyone where to drive diesels, it wouldnt work to well, but giving more people the choice is the way to go.

Give it a year Bob, and you'll see more and more diesels hitting the market as the US converts to ultra low sulfer fuel, which will allow the use of a particulate filter in the exhaust to get diesel into the right tier for emissions standards. Right now if you want an appropriate diesel for toting the family around, its a VW, a Jeep Liberty (the wrangler is getting a diesel later this year) or a Mercedes. In the next few years I expect to see just about every small, medium, and large SUV available with a diesel, as well as any car sold in the US or Europe will have its diesel cousin coming to the US as well.

Even the people republic of Kalifornia will allow the sale of new diesels under the new emissions standard, as right now if you wanted a VW or a Jeep diesel and you lived there, you would be required to buy a used one with a minimum of 15k miles on the clock.


----------



## Gun Owner

Bore.224 said:


> Guess I am stupid , I love muclecars ,drag races , and riping throught the gears on a curvy road. I love sharp looking cars with lots of charactor and charm,. And yeah I guess I am horney cause I like my woman the same way. I would never be caught driving an ugly Hybrid that is like driving a computer or dating a girl that looks like Rosie Odonnell.


Im with you...sorta. I just sold my first true hotrod, a 71 Mustang, 460 4 speed. Im now assembling a 79 Bronco with a 460 4 speed combo, and when that is done Im going to concentrate on my 65 Galaxie fastback with a 390 in it. All of these are extremely fun vehicles, with lots of style and character, as well as neck snapping acceleration.

But in day to day life, I drive a Ford Focus station wagon. Its economical, easy to drive, and its got lots of room for the kids. As wagons go I think its one of the better styled cars on the road, and I've got the Zetec 4 cyl backed up with a 5 speed manual, so its still fun to drive. Its not hard at all to forget what your doing in that car and catch yourself doing 90. Oh, and I've even taken it to the drags. Ran a 17.xxx, but still managed to put the hurting on some kid in his daddies BMW when he didnt realise green meant go


----------



## Bobm

Your reasoning for the longer breakin period on diesels makes sense to me so I'll go along with it.

But my point still stands their mileage even during breakin period is still as good or better than acomparable sized gas engine.

I like performance also, I'm beginning to do a motorcycle build up this spring. They give the best performance vs economy results anyway.

I've even heard rumors of some diesel motorcycles coming along I would like that


----------



## Gun Owner

Where did you hear about the motorcycles? A nice diesel powered Goldwing would be INCREDIBLE!


----------



## buckseye

there are more BTU's in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas and even less BTU's in propane. You can't get it out if it isn't in there in the first place.


----------



## buckseye

there are more BTU's in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas and even less BTU's in propane. You can't get it out if it isn't in there in the first place. 

what the heck, shooting doubles today I guess :lol:


----------



## Bobm

http://www.f1engineering.com/diesel%20bike%20specs.html

http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/ ... -star-twin

theres two, the second one would really be something to ride.

I read somewhere that someone is wrking on aharley conversion also


----------



## Bore.224

Allright Bobm lets get this thread back on track forget all that stuff I said and take it like this, as a consumer I am not interested in conserving gas, I like using it in excess. Now lets say most Americans feel the same way "and they do" what are we waiting for lets get in on this oil reserve, hey i would rather give my money to Canada then Sadi Arabia!


----------



## Gun Owner

If most Americans were hell bent on comsuming mass quantities of oil, Ford wouldnt be in the trouble they are in, which is a direct result of slumping SUV sales in responce to rising gas costs. This is also whats hurting GM, and to a lesser extent, Chrysler. Chrysler was smart and got some nice cars on the market, where Ford and GM were hell bent on winning in the SUV wars.

My brother just bought a used Expedition for almost 10k under KBB because they just arent selling. Everyday more and more people want to quit dropping $50 bills in their gas tanks.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

We have all kinds of oil in Alaska and the LIBERALS keep blocking the drilling by pumping people full of S_-T! :eyeroll:


----------



## Bore.224

ABBK , AMEN :thumb:


----------



## Bobm

even if you pump all you want out of alaska it wouldn't change the world price of oil much if any. You might as well pee in the ocean and try and turn it yellow.

So if you like burning your money, which is what gas is, thats ok with me but I agree with Gun owner you would be in the minority.

Why not have more fuel efficient vehicles for getting from point A to B.

Its stupid to burn more than necessary.....and oil shale is not a viable source of fuel yet the technology to extract it is not cost effective and thats what will drive when we get it.

We all as a nation have to come to grips with the fuel issue and this discussion shows that we have not . Its not about fun with hot rods its about being held hostage by a foreign govt and we should of been working on alternatives since Carter was president.

The only oil in our cars should be in the crankcases! When we get to that point we wil be self sufficient, which is a tenet of being a conservative isn't it? This is the politics forum remember :lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

It's Stupid to let other country's control your country's energy prices when you have your own resources and buy them elsewhere. :beer:


----------



## KEN W

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> It's Stupid to let other country's control your country's energy prices when you have your own resources and buy them elsewhere. :beer:


Man have you been asleep?It's happening in all comodities....

grain,beef,pork,lumber,TV's,clothing,steel,and more than I can mention.

Our countries gov't doesn't buy this stuff do they?Including Oil....doesn't BIG OIL buy it?????So as a Republican Conservative....should we nationalize all American oil companies so the gov't can make the decision about where to buy it??
:rollin:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Fairly BASIC supply and demand, if you add to the supply or decrease demand, the prices change accordingly.
So if we lower cosumition and increase supply we pay less. We control both.
So if we only have one supply and it gets disrupted prices go up.
:eyeroll: 
We need to control some of the supply factor!


----------



## Bobm

In a sense thats what this whole thread is about controlling supply, of course we are not in the position to do that even if we drilled everywhere we could. Especially not in the short term it would take years to ramp up domestic production if its even possible.

We consume too much oil because we are unwilling as a society to make the compromises necessary such as smaller cars ect. Until we decide to get there we are at the mercy of the oil sheiks and thats not a good thing.

We cannot produce ourselves out of this we have to use our superior technology and develop alternatives. And then we will control the supply. In fact, if we lead the world in development of solar and hydrogen powered vehicles we would once again be in the drivers seat ( pun intended)

Unfortunately I think too many in congress ( both sides)are swayed by the oil lobby where millions are at stake, and we as citizens have been dumbed down to the point that no one even knows who their congresssmen are.

We have become a society of political and economic dunces.


----------



## Bore.224

Bobm finding alternatives is a great idea, dont you think we already have? Why have we not a good alternative to oil now! 
Lets pretend I am an inventor and I come up with a way to run cars trucks air planes etc etc , heat homes and do whatever oil does with Raw sewage. First thing that will happen is the oil company will offer me a billion dollars for the patent rights do we agree? If I sell them to the oil companys they will bury the Idea and keep selling oil. If I dont sell the the patent I am sure to have a gun cleaning accident HMMM what should I do!!!


----------



## Gun Owner

Bore.224 said:


> Bobm finding alternatives is a great idea, dont you think we already have? Why have we not a good alternative to oil now!


Because pound for pound, crude oil has the best bang for your buck. It packs more BTU's than Natural gas, propane and hydrogen. Gasoline and diesel are easy to store on board a car, and refuling is a task even the most inadequately educated febe can handle. Imagine someone who cant read the "no smoking" sign trying to fuel his own vehicle at the hydrogen fuel station. Try as they might, its impossible to get an alternatively fueled vehicle to have the same power and range as its dino burning counterpart. Granted we are getting closer and closer every day, but we just arent there yet.

Personally, I think the best alternative vehicle will be a purely electric car with an extended range (which will come as battery technology and things like regenerative braking are improved) that is charge by electricty generated by a hydroelectric dam, geothermal generators, or even nuclear power. All of which are cleaner than coal burning plants, which just serve to move the polution source away from the car and towards the generation plant.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

AMEN! :beer:


----------



## Bobm

bore do you realize how many things have supposedly been bought and buried by oil companies?? its urban myth pure and simple minded it used to be the 100 mpg carberator :roll:


----------



## 94silverado

Hey i have one of those 100 MPG Carbs. Its on my project a 1971 Ford F250. It got got 110 MPG.

Small detail: it was on a trailer :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Pulled by a Chevy


----------



## Gun Owner

Hey now! Im a Ford guy


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Yea, and If someone believes the 6 million barrels a day that could come out of Alaska wouldn't make a difference then their stupid, plus all the jobs that would be created.
The longer we wait to start the process the more pain we're going to feel.


----------



## Bobm

bore
come to think of it there is a plant, in missouri I think, that is doing just that!they have come up with a way to convert sewage to methane gas and heating oil and use it to generate electricity

here it is
Fowl to Fuel
Changing World Technologies
West Hempstead, New York 
www.changingworldtech.com

Brian S. Appel doesn't sell snake oil, but he could. A veteran entrepreneur with experience pitching chocolates, concert tickets, and perfume, Appel runs a venture, Changing World Technologies, that can convert just about anything -- from turkey scraps to tires to used cell phones -- into oil.

CWT has discovered a shortcut to a process that normally requires millions of years. The company takes fats, bones, feathers, and grease hauled from ConAgra's Butterball plant in Carthage, Missouri, and blends the material into sludge. After a few hours of extreme heat and pressure, voila! One ton of turkey scraps yields 640 pounds of heating oil, 100 pounds of methane, and 60 pounds of fertilizer (plus another 1,200 pounds of, um, leftovers). Appel says the $31 million plant goes through about 250 tons of biowaste a day, producing 20,000 gallons of fuel that's sold to a local industrial customer for heating.

It sounds too good to be true -- and indeed, some observers say the thermal depolymerization technology is far from proven. (Appel fielded a call in 2003 from a Securities and Exchange Commission investigator concerned that the company was hyping its science in advance of an IPO. No offering was planned, then or now.) But on a small scale, it shows remarkable promise.

CWT's secret to innovation? It thinks inside the box. "We look for where we can take advantage of existing infrastructure," says Appel. Some alternative energies such as hydrogen fuel cells and biodiesel, he points out, require customers to adopt new machinery and practices. But "you can't alienate the people with the existing infrastructure. That's a self-serving boutique mentality."

Instead, CWT engineers look for ways to innovate within existing systems. The company's fuels are designed to burn in today's boilers and engines, while leftover materials are ground into farm-ready fertilizers. CWT also applies in-the-box thinking to smaller logistical practices. "Seventy-five percent of my team is focused on optimizing," says Appel."Is there a better pump to pump the fuel? Is there a better heater to heat it? Can we do it better?"

That focus on practicality has inspired the company to look to other waste products that may someday be converted into fuels, such as junk plastic and rubber. CWT is currently running a test with USCAR -- the research cooperative of the Big Three automakers -- to create fuel from leftover car parts such as foam seats and rubber hoses. Even sewage is a viable fuel source.

That's an outlandish vision -- your toilet connected to an oil refinery. But it's not so far-fetched in Europe, where CWT is looking to set up several biowaste plants, including one that's pending in Ireland. The innovation's future is less certain in the United States, where its economics are muddied by recent legislation that creates incentives for rival technologies -- and where the biggest barrier, Appel says, isn't the science itself, but the status quo. -- Lucas Conley


----------



## Remington 7400

*Bore .224 wrote:*



> Because I love gas guzzling ground shaking horsepower. The growl of a pushrod V-8 Just make me Smile.


You got that right!

Nothing like pick-up trucks, 351 V-8s, and bulldog transmissions!

But I guess I'm old fashioned!

:beer:


----------



## Bobm

In the US daily demand averages

Daily consumption 20 million barrels daily

daily production is about 3-3.5 million barrels per day including Alaska

We currently have the capability to refine about 16 million barrels per day

so your six million barrels per day ( it would be less) which wouldn't be available for years wouldn't change a thing and by the time they would be available estimates run 7-10 years demand in foriegn countries like China and india will be up as they would be here.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... ntents.htm


----------



## Gun Owner

Could be a stupid question, but how do we refine 16 million a day and use 20 million a day?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

So how long do we wait before drilling ANWR? If we would have started the process when Clinton VETOed it we wouldn't be in this situtation now!


----------



## racer66

Personally I think what is amazing is take for example the Dodge that Gohon bought back in 1989(160HP and 400ft.lb of torque and 20MPG), now they are producing 400HP and 600ft.lb of torque on that same 20MPG. It gives this pickup so much more versatility in my opinion, and the day the govt. tells me I can't buy one and do whatever I want with it will never happen.


----------



## R y a n

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> So how long do we wait before drilling ANWR? If we would have started the process when Clinton VETOed it we wouldn't be in this situtation now!


ABBR this is simply not true. Even if we started drilling back then, and were actually up to full capacity/output, that reserve would not solve our oil issues.

American oil companies currently produce 2.1 billion barrels of oil a year, mostly from Alaska, California and Texas. However, that output is only 30 percent of total U.S. consumption - 7 billion barrels a year. The remaining oil is imported from countries in the Middle East and Africa. Unrest in that region and skyrocketing oil prices have left U.S. companies demanding other alternatives.

Did you realize that with only 5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. consumes 26 percent of the world's oil? At its peak of production, Arctic Refuge oil could supply perhaps 1 percent of America's energy needs at any given time -- not enough to put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil.

Further, If the government DOES allow companies to begin drilling in the refuge, it could take up to 12 years for oil to reach the market! That does not sound like a viable fast permanent solution to our oil gluttony!

Ryan

.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

> ABBR this is simply not true. Even if we started drilling back then, and were actually up to full capacity/output, that reserve would not solve our oil issues.


No one said it would solve everything but it would have helped. And no it doesn't take 12 years from go to start producing oil in ANWR :eyeroll:

I understand the concept, however, when the world consumes more and no supply is added it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens to world oil prices. So by doing nothing isn't getting us anywhere and could put us into a recession. So I don't care if it take 6 years from start, to oil being pumped, lets get started instead of waiting till were screwed.

If the saudi's annouce tomorrow that they are cutting production by 2 million barrels a day what do you think that would do to world oil prices?


----------



## R y a n

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> No one said it would solve everything but it would have helped. And no it doesn't take 12 years from go to start producing oil in ANWR :eyeroll:
> 
> I understand the concept, however, when the world consumes more and no supply is added it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happens to world oil prices. So by doing nothing isn't getting us anywhere and could put us into a recession. So I don't care if it take 6 years from start, to oil being pumped, lets get started instead of waiting till were screwed.
> 
> If the saudi's annouce tomorrow that they are cutting production by 2 million barrels a day what do you think that would do to world oil prices?


ABBK

It is commonly known by all parties that for us to get up there, get established, drill, create pipeline to connect to the Big pipeline, etc that it will take a decade to fully accomplish. Neither side disputes that fact. Look it up.

Further, if the Saudi's said tomorrow they're cutting production by 2 million barrels a day, your answer would depend on if they were implementing a long term change. While each oil supply disruption is unique in its effect on world oil markets, the Energy Information Administration has developed "rules of thumb" to estimate price and U.S. macroeconomic impacts for oil supply disruptions. The rules of thumb provide a measure of uncertainty surrounding estimates for average prices and do not attempt to quantify the levels of likely price spikes that could occur during disruptions. The rules of thumb have been quantified based on a constant elasticity of demand formulation, which requires a larger and larger increase in price along its schedule for equal decrements in market quantity demanded.

For example, With oil prices around $40 per barrel, the rule of thumb is a price increase of $4-$6 per barrel per million barrels per day of net supply disruption. At lower prices, $20-$30 per barrel for instance, EIA would tend to use a rule of thumb more in the $3-$5 per barrel range. At higher prices, $50 per barrel for instance, the rule of thumb would tend more towards the $5-$7 per barrel range. The idea is to maintain similar percentage price increases necessary to balance supply and demand in the market. The "rule of thumb" is then applied to net oil supply disruptions. On top of that, there is a "price premium" and/or "psychology premium" that can be added on to the "rule of thumb" calculation as deemed analytically appropriate.

That being said, based on a sustained increase in the price of oil, each 10% increase in the price of oil could lower the real U.S. GDP growth rate by between 0.05 and 0.1 percentage points relative to its baseline level. First-year impacts are likely to be closer to the first estimate, while the impacts in the second year are likely to be near the larger estimate. For example, if the U.S. GDP were projected to grow by 3.0% per year, a 50% increase in the price of oil could reduce the real GDP growth rate by 0.25-0.5 percentage points, to 2.5%-2.75% per year in this example. In addition, actual economic impacts stemming from an oil price increase are influenced by a number of other factors, such as the financial and operating position of firms and industries comprising the economy.

Given an oil price of $40 per barrel, rules of thumb would be combined in the following way to estimate the impacts of a disruption. For every 1 million barrels per day of oil disrupted, the price rule of thumb suggests that oil prices could increase by $4-$6 per barrel, or by 10%-15%. The GDP rule-of-thumb suggests that if these price increases were sustained, the U.S. GDP growth rate could be reduced by 0.05-0.15 percentage points .

So your answer depends on many many factors and is not as strightforward as you think. In reality many things would happen that would make it an unlikely long term choice for the Saudi's. They enjoy a huge profit from our gluttony. They won't cut off the arm the feeds their greed.....

How's that for a "crude" economics lesson? Any questions?

Ryan

(who feels he is going into an intellectual battle with an unarmed man)

.


----------



## Bobm

> Could be a stupid question, but how do we refine 16 million a day and use 20 million a day?


I wondered that also my guess and it is a guess is we import it. I just read the numbers oof the DOE web site.

The bottom line is even if Alaskan oil was available tomorrow it wouldn't lower the world price of oil, demand is currently outstripping supply and if the world demand continues to increase ( it will) then any additional oil will be sold at the world price.
IE those companies will sell it to whoever will pay the most for it, not send it to the US. The oil company is in business to make money, not solve Americas energy woes.

Gas prices are higher than they should be because evironmentalists have meddled in the market by
demanding diffferent blends for air quaility purposes. 
Preventing the construction of new refineries( the not inmy backyard syndrome)

This has limited our ability to refine enough to meet demand.


----------



## Burly1

Exactly. Without the refining capacity, drilling and sending Alaskan oil to the lower 48 would accomplish nothing regarding international oil prices. We are indeed stuck in place by the environmental lobbies who refuse to accept new refineries that use existing clean air technologies. Their insistance on zero pollution while refining crude oil has virtually hogtied the refining industry. Alternative fuels may be part of the answer but until we are, as a nation, willing to accept a certain amount of pollution to continue our lifestyles, oil and fuel prices will continue to rise. The only other solution that might be viable, in my opinion, would be to nationalize our refining industry. It's happening with healthcare, slowly but surely and it will eventually provide some kind of resollution to the problem. Why not oil? I know our current leadership is already overwhelmed, but without some kind of a concrete plan that doesn't involve trillions of dollars of unrestrained profit, can we really expect things to change? Burl


----------



## Bore.224

Bobm said:


> bore do you realize how many things have supposedly been bought and buried by oil companies?? its urban myth pure and simple minded it used to be the 100 mpg carberator :roll:


Really watch what happens to CWT you told me about! What would you do to as a CEO for a large oil company, you have to protect the shareholders interest!!


----------



## R y a n

Burly1 said:


> Exactly. Without the refining capacity, drilling and sending Alaskan oil to the lower 48 would accomplish nothing regarding international oil prices. We are indeed stuck in place by the environmental lobbies who refuse to accept new refineries that use existing clean air technologies. Their insistance on zero pollution while refining crude oil has virtually hogtied the refining industry. Alternative fuels may be part of the answer but until we are, as a nation, willing to accept a certain amount of pollution to continue our lifestyles, oil and fuel prices will continue to rise. The only other solution that might be viable, in my opinion, would be to nationalize our refining industry. It's happening with healthcare, slowly but surely and it will eventually provide some kind of resollution to the problem. Why not oil? I know our current leadership is already overwhelmed, but without some kind of a concrete plan that doesn't involve trillions of dollars of unrestrained profit, can we really expect things to change? Burl


Very true.. great post Burl

Our issue in the US has more to do with the big oil companies refusing to create more refineries. The current refinery system allows them to stifle any gain we get by having additional crude resources. Without additional refining capacity this whole argument is a moot point. If you want a finger to point at the high price at the pump, blame your congressman for not having a refinery built in your state. If every state added just 1 refinery each (and California, Texas, New York and Florida added 3 each), we would be paying $1.25-$1.50 prices again. Until that day happens, prices won't return to those levels ever again.

Ryan

.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

> Exactly. Without the refining capacity, drilling and sending Alaskan oil to the lower 48 would accomplish *nothing* regarding international oil prices


 :bs: For you big die hard union guys the teamster even support it.



> Pro-ANWR radio ads to air
> 
> The Teamsters Union is planning on airing radio advertisements praising members of Congress who voted to support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
> 
> The ads will air in response to a recent campaign by environmentalists. The environmentalists ran ads praising members of Congress who voted against drilling and criticizing those who did.
> 
> The House has passed a bill to allow oil drilling on 2,000 acres in the refuge. The Senate has yet to consider the proposal.
> 
> A Reuters poll of members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee found that drilling would clear by the panel if Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) supports it.


----------



## Burly1

Well of course the teamsters will support transporting oil. They support anything that is going to line their pockets, whether or not it makes economic sense for the rest of the country. Maybe you have a big refinery hidden somewhere. If so, get it into production sport, because if you don't, all the oil in the NWR isn't worth the power it would take to get it here. Get the lobbyists from the other trade unions to start promoting new refineries and squash the expansive environmental lobbies. That would accomplish more than anything you've posted on this subject thus far. Try to look a little farther than the end of your nose and turn your head to the side once in a while. You have the worse case of tunnel vision I have ever seen. The majority of your posts make no sense at all, and the rest are nothing more than spitting venom. Try doing a little research and maybe then you might just make some kind of worthwhile contribution to this thread. Burl


----------



## Gohon

> and squash the expansive environmental lobbies


That right there is the single biggest reason we have no new refineries in this country. You can add them to the reason we have no new hydroelectric dams built also.


----------



## Burly1

Or nuclear power plants, which when properly constructed and managed would solve a great portion of our energy crisis by lessening our need for oil and gas to produce domestic power. Burl


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

How about ACTION and stop talken about it.
Let's get'er done; make windmills, NUKE powerplants, drill ANWR, and ride bikes to work,whatever! Lets do it together and stop blocking progress before it screws us. 
Today Alaska crude up over $4 a barrell. That was caused by an *attempt * to blow-up 1 oil refinery in saudi. ONLY ONE, WOW!

ALL Dem's just put your fuzzy calculaters down and get on board!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Burly1 said:


> Or nuclear power plants, which when properly constructed and managed would solve a great portion of our energy crisis by lessening our need for oil and gas to produce domestic power. Burl


Nuclear plants are just too dangerous. It is a huge hassle to deal with the waste and they make a perfect target in this age of terrorist attacks. We need to quit looking at the past and start moving forward when it comes to energy.



> That right there is the single biggest reason we have no new refineries in this country. You can add them to the reason we have no new hydroelectric dams built also.


Because refineries pollute the environment and dams ruin fish populations and lead to flooding and major changes in the way water flows. We all like hunting and fishing, why not seek to protect it? Ruining the environment for energy is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Burly1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or nuclear power plants, which when properly constructed and managed would solve a great portion of our energy crisis by lessening our need for oil and gas to produce domestic power. Burl
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear plants are just too dangerous. It is a huge hassle to deal with the waste and they make a perfect target in this age of terrorist attacks. We need to quit looking at the past and start moving forward when it comes to energy.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, and to prove my point, for the first time in my life Im going to say look at the French example. Nuclear energy is the future. Personally I look forward to the day that cold fusion is a reality, but it isnt right now. Nuclear is cleaner than coal, is more secure than a coal plant, and the waste can be dealt with.



Militant_Tiger said:


> That right there is the single biggest reason we have no new refineries in this country. You can add them to the reason we have no new hydroelectric dams built also.
> 
> 
> 
> Because refineries pollute the environment and dams ruin fish populations and lead to flooding and major changes in the way water flows. We all like hunting and fishing, why not seek to protect it? Ruining the environment for energy is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Click to expand...

Granted refineries polute, but modern technologies have reduced that pollution quite a bit. Dams dont cause flooding BTW, they are actually a way to prevent flooding. Dams also provide clean, non poluting energy. Wildlife studies and close attention to the environment can allow projects like dams to be built with minimal environmental impact.

The only other fairly viable option we have is geothermal, but it is still in its infancy. Wind farms are under attack by environmentalists because of bird fatalities and the general eye sores that they are seen as by some people. Solar simply requires too many square feet to be useful, although I imagine in time photovoltaic cells will become more efficient.

What else is there? Everytime a new cleaner source of energy is found, some environmental peon finds out its harmful some how. People need to wake up and realise we impact the environment everyday. Heck, most environmentally conscious vegans polute more physically courtesy of broccolli farts than your average meat eater. There is no happy sollution for everyone, but a mix of different sources in areas best suited for them is the key.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I have to disagree, and to prove my point, for the first time in my life Im going to say look at the French example. Nuclear energy is the future. Personally I look forward to the day that cold fusion is a reality, but it isnt right now. Nuclear is cleaner than coal, is more secure than a coal plant, and the waste can be dealt with.


It is only cleaner than coal assuming ideal conditions in which nothing goes wrong. As evident in 3 mile island and chernobly, things go wrong. How exactly is it more secure than a coal plant?



> Granted refineries polute, but modern technologies have reduced that pollution quite a bit. Dams dont cause flooding BTW, they are actually a way to prevent flooding. Dams also provide clean, non poluting energy. Wildlife studies and close attention to the environment can allow projects like dams to be built with minimal environmental impact.


It has been reduced, a little. Not enough to stop global warming, maybe enough to slow it a bit. Dams do indeed cause flooding, again you are assuming ideal conditions. Dams dry river beds, alter landscapes perhaps permenantly and kill off fish that migrate.



> The only other fairly viable option we have is geothermal, but it is still in its infancy. Wind farms are under attack by environmentalists because of bird fatalities and the general eye sores that they are seen as by some people. Solar simply requires too many square feet to be useful, although I imagine in time photovoltaic cells will become more efficient.


Geothermal is very spotty. Those arguments against wind farms are pretty weak, and can be placed in less than scenic areas. Solar pannels on every roof in America isin't a bad idea, unused space if you ask me.



> What else is there? Everytime a new cleaner source of energy is found, some environmental peon finds out its harmful some how. People need to wake up and realise we impact the environment everyday. Heck, most environmentally conscious vegans polute more physically courtesy of broccolli farts than your average meat eater. There is no happy sollution for everyone, but a mix of different sources in areas best suited for them is the key.


It is thanks to those peons that we don't still live in the days of burning coal inside of our homes and harvesting whales for oil.


----------



## buckseye

> Nuclear plants are just too dangerous. It is a huge hassle to deal with the waste and they make a perfect target in this age of terrorist attacks. We need to quit looking at the past and start moving forward when it comes to energy.


MT that is the most uneducated thing you have wrote. You must have forgotten the US NAVY, they have been nuclear powered for over 50 years with ZERO nuclear accidents. NASA powers their satellites and space station with nuclear power, for gosh sakes study what you write a little bit. Japan has nuclear powered pacemakers and a plutonium breeder reactor they gave developed. We are letting other countries develop many uses for nuclear energy other than bombs.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

MT isn't in stride with the trend amongst the left wingers and environmentalists, who are now seeing the light regarding nuclear power. He is simply parroting what he believes is the left's stance on this issue, which has shifted away from the classic NIMBY point of view of years past. Nuclear is clearly the lesser of other evils. France is ceratiainly the model as far as nukes go.

There hasn't been a nuke plant built here in over 30 years. The technology now is light years ahead of what is was then. However, France generates more than 75% of its eletricity form nuclear. For the US to get to that point we would have to have 3-4 new reactors come on line every month for the next 40 years. Certainly not feasible.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5231576

Yes, alternative methods need to be researched and funded. However, solutions cannot wait forever.

I remember hearing somewhere that there is enough wind energy in Texas and the Dakotas alone to supply this country with all of its electricity needs.

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html

_The United States has tremendous wind energy resources.
Although California gave birth to the modern U.S. wind industry,
16 states have greater wind potential.

Installed wind energy generating capacity now totals 9,149
MW, and is expected to generate about 24.8 billion kWh of
electricity in 2006. However, that is still less than 1% of U.S.
electricity generation. By contrast, the total amount of electricity
that could potentially be generated from wind in the United
States has been estimated at 10,777 billion kWh annually-
three times the electricity generated in the U.S. today.

These new wind farms demonstrate how wind energy can help meet the nation's growing need for affordable, reliable power. With continued government encouragement to accelerate its development,
this increasingly competitive source of energy will provide at least six percent of the nation's electricity by 2020 and revitalize farms and rural communities - without consuming any natural resource or emitting any pollution or greenhouse gases.

THE TOP TWENTY STATES for wind energy potential, as measured
by annual energy potential in the billions of kWhs, factoring in
environmental and land use exclusions for wind class of 3 and higher.

1 North Dakota 1,210 11 Colorado 481
2 Texas 1,190 12 New Mexico 435
3 Kansas 1,070 13 Idaho 73
4 South Dakota 1,030 14 Michigan 65
5 Montana 1,020 15 New York 62
6 Nebraska 868 16 Illinois 61
7 Wyoming 747 17 California 59
8 Oklahoma 725 18 Wisconsin 58
9 Minnesota 657 19 Maine 56
10 Iowa 551 20 Missouri 52

Source: An Assessment of the Available Windy Land Area and Wind Energy
Potential in the Contiguous United States, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1991.
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html_

Biomass has potential, yet still releases greenhouse gasses.

Hydroelectric is non-polluting. But I feel the hydrological, ecological, and environmental costs to be excessive.

Just a few opinions on the issues.

Robert


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

I know when I was stationed in NH till 1990, they had built a NUKE powerplant in Seabrook MA and I know the democrats blocked the operation for years and I don't know if it ever did come up on line.
These are the type of things that are killing our nation, nay sayers and obstructionist to more effective ways to be independent of foriegn energy sources. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> I have to disagree, and to prove my point, for the first time in my life Im going to say look at the French example. Nuclear energy is the future. Personally I look forward to the day that cold fusion is a reality, but it isnt right now. Nuclear is cleaner than coal, is more secure than a coal plant, and the waste can be dealt with.
> 
> 
> 
> It is only cleaner than coal assuming ideal conditions in which nothing goes wrong. As evident in 3 mile island and chernobly, things go wrong. How exactly is it more secure than a coal plant?
Click to expand...

50 years of Nuclear power and this is all that has gone wrong. Three mile island was a result of bad design, nothing more. Chernobyl was the result of a flawed design, backed up with a crew of inept workers (part of the reson why socialism is bad). Many nations continue to use Nuclear energy as a clean viable source of electricity. It works, and improvements on design as a direct result of those accidents have vastly improved the safety of the modern nuclear plant. You say not to dwell on the past, well, in April we will have had 20 yrs since Chernobyl.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Granted refineries polute, but modern technologies have reduced that pollution quite a bit. Dams dont cause flooding BTW, they are actually a way to prevent flooding. Dams also provide clean, non poluting energy. Wildlife studies and close attention to the environment can allow projects like dams to be built with minimal environmental impact.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been reduced, a little. Not enough to stop global warming, maybe enough to slow it a bit. Dams do indeed cause flooding, again you are assuming ideal conditions. Dams dry river beds, alter landscapes perhaps permenantly and kill off fish that migrate.
Click to expand...

I cant find any #'s, but considering cars have been able to reduce their pollutant levels by upwards of 95% since 1973, I'd have to say technology has improved not only the efficiency of refineries, but the polutant output as well.

Please point out where dams have caused flooding, as I've always been under the impression that dams are usually built at flood prone areas to not only reduce flooding, but use the excess water that would usually cause flooding to fill their resevoirs so as not to dry out the down stream river. I could be wrong, but this is what I remember learning in school. Dont forget, the Hoover dam is just a few miles away from me, so schools used it for all kinds of teaching aides and field trips. Yes, dams do alter landscapes, but so do floods, earthquakes, fires, volcanos, tsunamies, and a host of other naturally occuring events. The environment can handle a new puddle of water now and again. Regarding the fish, Work with biologists and engineers are resulting in even more ways for fish to bypass dams and still allow dams to function. Man and nature can work together.



Militant_Tiger said:


> The only other fairly viable option we have is geothermal, but it is still in its infancy. Wind farms are under attack by environmentalists because of bird fatalities and the general eye sores that they are seen as by some people. Solar simply requires too many square feet to be useful, although I imagine in time photovoltaic cells will become more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> Geothermal is very spotty. Those arguments against wind farms are pretty weak, and can be placed in less than scenic areas. Solar pannels on every roof in America isin't a bad idea, unused space if you ask me.
Click to expand...

What exactly is spotty about geothermal? I agree its got a ways to go before its viable, but you say that as if its also harmful. If Im reading you wrong, I apologise.

Regarding the arguments against wind, yeah, I agree they are weak. But I think they are just as weak as your arguments about nuclear. This is merely to show you my mindset regarding you and nuclear, to better help you understand why I think what I do.

As for solar, great idea. Price out the cost of Outfitting just one home with solar panels.



Militant_Tiger said:


> What else is there? Everytime a new cleaner source of energy is found, some environmental peon finds out its harmful some how. People need to wake up and realise we impact the environment everyday. Heck, most environmentally conscious vegans polute more physically courtesy of broccolli farts than your average meat eater. There is no happy sollution for everyone, but a mix of different sources in areas best suited for them is the key.
> 
> 
> 
> It is thanks to those peons that we don't still live in the days of burning coal inside of our homes and harvesting whales for oil.
Click to expand...

Trust me, there was no Greenpeace in 1861 telling people to quit using whale oil. A better, cheaper and more efficient method was found and employed. The same fate awaits crude oil and coal, but were not there yet.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT isn't in stride with the trend amongst the left wingers and environmentalists, who are now seeing the light regarding nuclear power. He is simply parroting what he believes is the left's stance on this issue, which has shifted away from the classic NIMBY point of view of years past. Nuclear is clearly the lesser of other evils. France is ceratiainly the model as far as nukes go.


So I am usually a shill for the left, but now I am a shill for the old left wing views. Is it possible that I have my own views on said subject? Will I at some point be a shill for the future left wing views in your mind?



> Trust me, there was no Greenpeace in 1861 telling people to quit using whale oil. A better, cheaper and more efficient method was found and employed. The same fate awaits crude oil and coal, but were not there yet.


Good point, but there is a reason why no one has suggested reverting to such practices in this time of high energy costs, much like Bush's suggestion that we use switchgrass.



> You say not to dwell on the past, well, in April we will have had 20 yrs since Chernobyl.


Yet the area will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years due to the explosion. I hardly call that history.



> I cant find any #'s, but considering cars have been able to reduce their pollutant levels by upwards of 95% since 1973, I'd have to say technology has improved not only the efficiency of refineries, but the polutant output as well.


That number seems a little high.



> Please point out where dams have caused flooding, as I've always been under the impression that dams are usually built at flood prone areas to not only reduce flooding, but use the excess water that would usually cause flooding to fill their resevoirs so as not to dry out the down stream river. I could be wrong, but this is what I remember learning in school. Dont forget, the Hoover dam is just a few miles away from me, so schools used it for all kinds of teaching aides and field trips. Yes, dams do alter landscapes, but so do floods, earthquakes, fires, volcanos, tsunamies, and a host of other naturally occuring events. The environment can handle a new puddle of water now and again. Regarding the fish, Work with biologists and engineers are resulting in even more ways for fish to bypass dams and still allow dams to function. Man and nature can work together.


If a dam breaks you risk flooding entire cities. Earthquakes, fires, and tsunamies do alter landscapes, temporarialy. Dams can alter landscapes such that they can never be returned to their natural form. The Colorado river can never be restored.



> What exactly is spotty about geothermal? I agree its got a ways to go before its viable, but you say that as if its also harmful. If Im reading you wrong, I apologise.


It is spotty in that it can only be placed in select areas, along faults if my memory serves. Also, it can be cost prohibitive when it comes to digging.


----------



## buckseye

> Yet the area will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years due to the explosion. I hardly call that history.


And yet another fable from MT, you should do some reading about the water, soil qualities plus how the area abounds with wildlife. Even the frogs are fine. You don't even know what happened over there in the first place. I'll start you out with they were experimenting with putting sand in the reactor along with the needed water to gain more heat from the water. Next was BOOM steam line blew, not the reactor. There has never been a reactor problem Cherynobel or Three Mile. Read MT, read before you keep making yourself look so uneducated.



> It is spotty in that it can only be placed in select areas, along faults if my memory serves. Also, it can be cost prohibitive when it comes to digging.


You are even less educated on this than nuclear MT... WOW


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> And yet another fable from MT, you should do some reading about the water, soil qualities plus how the area abounds with wildlife. Even the frogs are fine. You don't even know what happened over there in the first place. I'll start you out with they were experimenting with putting sand in the reactor along with the needed water to gain more heat from the water. Next was BOOM steam line blew, not the reactor. There has never been a reactor problem Cherynobel or Three Mile. Read MT, read before you keep making yourself look so uneducated.


http://www.sundayherald.com/53996

I don't much care about frogs being able to inhabit the area buck, I speak of humans.



> You are even less educated on this than nuclear MT... WOW


Care to point out why or are you just going to insult me in your ignorance?


----------



## buckseye

> I don't much care about frogs being able to inhabit the area buck, I speak of humans


WOW where have you been hiding? You missed a lot of common knowledge that many of us share.

I have educated myself on geothermal now you do it. Think Yellowstone for the basics.

Sorry to insult you not knowing if you have a mental disability or not..Sorry again.



> Lately , Lovelock has changed his opinion. The recent dramatic shift in global warming has convinced him that we are hastening the planet's ruination. Three years ago, this environmental icon shook the green movement to its core by championing nuclear power as a safe, quick-fix way to meet our growing energy needs without pumping carbon into the already unbalanced atmosphere. No other solution can deliver on time or in sufficient quantity . The expense of nuclear is nothing compared to the cost of losing civilisation to rising flood waters, while the dangers are a figment of our fearful imaginations . And the pollution? Mere industrial waste that could be a blessing in disguise.


Is that what you wanted me to read.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> WOW where have you been hiding? You missed a lot of common knowledge that many of us share.


So, lets hear it. Prove me wrong about geothermal energy. Simply stating that you know more doesn't prove a damn.


----------



## buckseye

:lol: Think Yellowstone, ever heard of Old Faithful? That's geothermal. I know why you think the way you do and it involves the geothermal in CA, you need to read more than a newspaper article to be educated about geothermal MT. I hope you have time to read a few more articles.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Again, you fail to explain exactly why my claim that it is spotty and often expensive to implement is wrong. This being the second time you have failed to address said issue, I must assume that you are simply wrong.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Good point, but there is a reason why no one has suggested reverting to such practices in this time of high energy costs, much like Bush's suggestion that we use switchgrass.


I though switch grass was just as viable as the e85 everyone is pushing for, and is easier to cultivate than corn.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Yet the area will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years due to the explosion. I hardly call that history.


It is history. It was a tragic event, but we learned from it. If we all gave up on something instead of learning from mistakes we would all be no more than another furry animal, without so much as the ability to control fire.



Militant_Tiger said:


> That number seems a little high.


I cant find numbers right now, but in 1973 when the limits on some emissions were in the 2k ppm range, are now under 300. Im not saying your average 1973 VW polluted that badly, but consider the pollution levels of a 1970 Boss 429 mustang with 375 horse on tap, and compare it to the new Cobra, with 390 on tap. There is a HUGE decrease in the emissions of the new cars. Without the power robbing traits of cars from the late 70s and early 80s. Technology improved efficiency AND emmissions. And thats a fact.



Militant_Tiger said:


> If a dam breaks you risk flooding entire cities. Earthquakes, fires, and tsunamies do alter landscapes, temporarialy. Dams can alter landscapes such that they can never be returned to their natural form. The Colorado river can never be restored.


Sure, but IF is a very big word. IF you cross the street, you may be hit by a car, IF you walk into a 7-11 at 3 am, you may be shot in a robbery. I dont live my life worrying about the ifs. As for altered landscapes, the area under the city of Manhattan has been changed forever, the same goes for every major city in the world. Just because it cant be reverted back doesnt mean its a bad thing. Man alters his surroundings, to his benefit. Thats what makes us who we are. Yes we should be careful about how we do it, but good lord man, if we stopped doing anything that was irreversible, we'd stop progress in its tracks.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You're right, but I am very hesitant to pursue such projects with any gusto because of the dreadful impact it can have. There is no dam that does not effect the wildlife in the area drastically, and there is no nuclear plan, no matter how many failsafes are installed that is completely safe. I believe that more research should be put into less centralized methods of power, such as hydrogen cells to power automobiles, than home power.


----------



## Gun Owner

Hydrogen is a mixed blessing you know. Most of the hydrogen comes from coal or oil. I've got a neat lil book here called the hydrogen world view, writtin by a Dr. Roger E Billings. This guy has been trying to develop a useful hydrogen powered car since he was in high school, in 1963. Hes had a lot of very neat ideas, but in the end the result is always the same. He cant keep enough hydrogen on board for a long range.

Thats why I put my interest in alternative fueled vehicles being completely electric vehicles, and charged by electricity generated clean sources. They may never have the range of a gas powered car, but it'd make one great commuter car. I've even toyed around with the idea of building my own electric car out of an old pinto wagon or something, but right now the electricity rates arent all that great, so it wouldnt be cost effective.


----------



## racer66

> You're right, but I am very hesitant to pursue such projects with any gusto because of the dreadful impact it can have. There is no dam that does not effect the wildlife in the area drastically, and there is no nuclear plan, no matter how many failsafes are installed that is completely safe. I believe that more research should be put into less centralized methods of power, such as hydrogen cells to power automobiles, than home power


I thank God everday the Liberals are not in power, there heads are buried in the sand all the way to their ankles.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I thank God everday the Liberals are not in power, there heads are buried in the sand all the way to their ankles.


Don't speak so soon, there are only two more years until the next presidential election.


----------



## Gun Owner

And with any luck, Hillary will run and we wont have a thing to worry about


----------



## Plainsman

> I though switch grass was just as viable as the e85 everyone is pushing for, and is easier to cultivate than corn.


Your right gun Gun Owner switch grass is a viable alternative. It is much better because it is a perennial and needs not be planted each year. It also does not need fertilizers or pesticides. It will produce ethanol as with much less energy invested per gallon of ethanol produced.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

I don't think he got anyone here to change their vote, unless there was some undecided's, in that case, thank you MT your doing a great job supporting those you hate most. Your the rights best spokes-person! :lol:


----------



## arctic plainsman

Does anybody have a handle on how switch grass would benefit or be a detriment for wildlife? 
If switch grass can be fermented into an economical fuel, how about booze?
Just kidding about the second question.


----------



## Plainsman

It would be much like CRP or DNC (Dense nesting cover). The time it is cut would be paramount in it's importance as a nesting cover. Cut to early and many nest would be destroyed and it would act as a population sink. It needs to be harvested while seeds are still attached, but that could still be after many of the nests were hatched. 
If it is cut just after seed heads mature there should also be enough growth that year to provide residual cover and benefit wildlife as a winter habitat. There may be a few drawbacks, but it would be far more economical and environmentally friendly compared to corn. 
Harvesting each year should eventually get rid of most invasive weed species. If not burning after harvest would help reduce invasive species. As a last resort broad leaf herbicide could be applied, but would be required much less than on any annual species. 
Lastly switch grass (Panicum virgatum) is a native species to the Great Plains, hence perfectly adapted to dry land agricultural practices.


----------



## buckseye

> Again, you fail to explain exactly why my claim that it is spotty and often expensive to implement is wrong. This being the second time you have failed to address said issue, I must assume that you are simply wrong


MT... sorry buddy just got back  Did you not learn the earth is hot in the center or under the mantle? The fault lines along with other natural occurrences like volcanoes are where the earth's crust is thinnest allowing the heat from the center to come closer to the surface. But it is still hot everywhere else too just at a greater depth. In ND at around 10,000 feet the returns on the drilling rigs are starting to be very hot to touch, at 15,000 feet you don't want to touch the fluid coming out of the ground.

Well I had my fun for today, I hope you enjoy your lesson in geothermal.


----------



## indsport

My VW Jetta Diesel wagon has averaged 49.6 mpg for the first 80,000 miles, mostly on the highway, and that includes up and down mountains, and running 75 mph where possible. It was one of the few compact wagons that can hold my 2 labradors. 
Sorry, VW stopped making that model diesel in 2005 and dropped the mileage back into the mid 40's on the road. I asked them why and they told me that the Amercian consumer wanted more horsepower rather than better mileage. 
For those of us who have visited Europe, most every car model made by every manufacturer (including Ford and GM) for the european market get 10-20% better gas mileage than the same US model. For some reason, the car manufacturers will not answer this question and believe me I have tried to find out why. I also got the run around from the US EPA and Department of Commerce. Makes you think, doesn't it?


----------



## Robert A. Langager

I truly think and hope that the automakers will see the increased demand for higher mileage vehicles here in the states. I would venture to say that there will be a larger market for diesel vehicles in the states.

One only needs to remember GM's venture into diesels in the 80's with the very awful 6.2 diesel. That pretty much left a dirty taste in our mouths regarding diesels and explains why the demand here has been pretty low.

The Benz's were about the only offering here that sold well. Of course the larger trucks (Cummis, Duramax, Powerstroke) have them and sell very well. I just hope that some day I can go to the Toyota dealership and pick out a Tacoma or Tundra with a 4 or 6 cyl diesel. They only sell them everywhere else in the world.

I wonder if the fact that they still run leaded gas in Europe has anything to do with their better fuel economy? It would also be interesting to see the power output of the European modles vs. the US versions as well.

Robert


----------



## Bobm

> They only sell them everywhere else in the world


frustrating isn't it??

And gm, Ford ect wonder why they are losing market share :eyeroll:

If everyone had one vehicle like Indsports that they used for day to day commuting our fuel consumption would be cut in less than half, plus the huge drop in demand would tend to lower the price per gallon substantially.

Americans are stupid about some things.

Check out the Sprinter vans compare them to American vans, twice the mileage and strong acceleration towing ect. I want one.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Bobm said:


> They only sell them everywhere else in the world
> 
> 
> 
> frustrating isn't it??
> 
> And gm, Ford ect wonder why they are losing market share :eyeroll:
> 
> If everyone had one vehicle like Indsports that they used for day to day commuting our fuel consumption would be cut in less than half, plus the huge drop in demand would tend to lower the price per gallon substantially.
> 
> Americans are stupid about some things.
> 
> Check out the Sprinter vans compare them to American vans, twice the mileage and strong acceleration towing ect. I want one.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the Sprinter is much bigger too.

Some people must have their big V8s and SUVs. We cannot tell them otherwise legislatively, however the market forces are doing that for us.
Just try to trade off your (insert SUV of choice here) for a more efficient vehicle, you will take it right up the tailpipe. The market for used SUVs is saturated. Don't take this as a tirade against SUVs. Many people truly do need them, but here in the south, 4 wheel drive is needed about once a year, and not at all this winter.

Sure, I would love another Toyota Land Cruiser for a daily driver. Instead, I chose a tiny Honda Civic that will do about 40 mpg on the highway. Even my Toyota pickup that gets 25 mpg isn't good enough, plus it isn't a very good family truckster.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT... sorry buddy just got back Did you not learn the earth is hot in the center or under the mantle? The fault lines along with other natural occurrences like volcanoes are where the earth's crust is thinnest allowing the heat from the center to come closer to the surface. But it is still hot everywhere else too just at a greater depth. In ND at around 10,000 feet the returns on the drilling rigs are starting to be very hot to touch, at 15,000 feet you don't want to touch the fluid coming out of the ground.
> 
> Well I had my fun for today, I hope you enjoy your lesson in geothermal.


It is quite simply not economical to drill so far to get to heat. Geothermal plants are put along major faults, of which are are but a few in the U.S.


----------



## buckseye

Thanks for YOUR opinion


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> Thanks for YOUR opinion


No, thats what I learned in AP Environmental Science class at a magnet school. Where are you pulling your information?


----------



## buckseye

I used to work with it.


----------



## racer66

It doesn't matter Buckseye, MT has more knowledge with his vast years of experience and first hand knowledge from studying it.

Not to change the subject but, KenW nice one locking that thread, my guess is MT PM'd you whining about everybody picking on him and you being a brother of his, well everybody gets the picture I think.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Well then, I guess I'll take that crow now. Tell us what you know about it, couldn't hurt to hear from someone who worked closely with it. Also, in what respect were you involved?


----------



## Gun Owner

Bobm said:


> Americans are stupid about some things.
> 
> Check out the Sprinter vans compare them to American vans, twice the mileage and strong acceleration towing ect. I want one.


Yes we are, but high pump prices are teaching us.

Oh and them Sprinter vans.... Awesome vehicles. I've been trying to get one for my plumbing buisness, and I wouldnt mind getting one for hunting and camping either. There are already a few motorhome conversions done on them. MArvelous machines they are.


----------



## buckseye

MT if I told ya I would have to terminate you... :lol:

I think you have a better chance of understanding geothermal if you learn it for yourself, or better yet get a job and feel the heat.


----------



## racer66

> Well then, I guess I'll take that crow now. Tell us what you know about it, couldn't hurt to hear from someone who worked closely with it. Also, in what respect were you involved?


My knowledge is limited on geothermal as I have not studied it or worked with it, YOU were the one on here flappin your gums about all of your vast knowledge. You gotta love it, the KID gets spanked again.

By the way KenW, you are the moderator of which forum again?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> MT if I told ya I would have to terminate you... :lol:
> 
> I think you have a better chance of understanding geothermal if you learn it for yourself, or better yet get a job and feel the heat.


Well as I said I've already studied it, the benefits and problems, but I wanted to hear from someone who evidently knows it better than I do. Your choice though.

Edit: From my notes production in CA hit its peak around the 80s, producing about 2,000 megawatts. These days it produces around 865 megawatts. Essientially my understanding is that an area has to have geysers for a profitable geothermal plant to be put on the site. Even then it can take quite a bit of drilling to reach usable pockets of hot water, which often makes the venture unprofitable.


----------



## buckseye

Honestly MT i would go into this farther but after reading your post the other day about how you only come on here to play games and try to irritate people I won't waste my time with you unless I'm having a bit of fun back. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

buckseye said:


> Honestly MT i would go into this farther but after reading your post the other day about how you only come on here to play games and try to irritate people I won't waste my time with you unless I'm having a bit of fun back. :lol:


Nice of you to leave out the rest of the sentence.

Here are some geothermal links for those who would like to learn more.

http://geothermal.marin.org/
http://iga.igg.cnr.it/geo/geoenergy.php
www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/directuse.html


----------



## buckseye

> Nice of you to leave out the rest of the sentence


You are very welcome MT. :lol: and while you are at it learn about heat pumps too.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

After the last tree has been cut down
After the last river has been poisoned
After the last fish has been caught
Only then will you find
That money cannot be eaten.
Cree Prophecy


----------



## the_rookie

Holy **** I almost had a seizure when I read that MT. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. It makes no sense at all. It's somewhat right but way wrong. The thing is once we use up our abundant rescources people will die its simple...so why and try to stop something that is enebadble


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Take it up with the Cree.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

Racer66 Wrote:


> By the way KenW, you are the moderator of which forum again?


Yea I think that KenW lost some creditablity doing that. Sometimes you just need to lighten up! It's not like we're all at a job interview or something.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

racer66 said:


> By the way KenW, you are the moderator of which forum again?


Ken is the moderator of all forums as am I. Chris needs a couple of "supermods" keep an eye on things when he cannot. Such as this weekend when some schmoe posted 103 spam messages in just about every forum. Having the master key means that Chris trusts our judgement, like it or not.


----------



## racer66

> Ken is the moderator of all forums as am I. Chris needs a couple of "supermods" keep an eye on things when he cannot. Such as this weekend when some schmoe posted 103 spam messages in just about every forum. Having the master key means that Chris trusts our judgement, like it or not


Its obvious why Kenny locked the thread, MT PM'd him whining and being from the same mold Kenny swung his bat.



> After the last tree has been cut down
> After the last river has been poisoned
> After the last fish has been caught


Management of each and every one of these is watched very closely, continue to keep talking kid.


----------



## Plainsman

Most outrageous quote:
Actually my first thought was this thread will be locked within the hour. Then it didn't look to bad, and I even joined in. Things did get out of hand, but towards the end became more a humor thing which I tried to participate. I don't think there was much tasteful future for the thread beyond where it was at. I think I did fall asleep at the switch a little there, and Ken took care of that. Considering the circumstances it was the right thing to do.


----------



## Bobm

I thought it was funny and in good humor. That said you all need to give up the personal attacks and go for the factual proofs of the positions you have about the various topics. When you make good points about your positions this forum is fun and interesting.

When it decends into a bunch of people mocking each other in a serious tone, it becomes boring and juvenile. We are all guilty of it once in a while including the moderators especially me, but we do need to get a grip.

There are rules here and we need to abide by them, the politics forum gets more leeway than the other ones because by its vary nature politics is confrontational, lets all try to keep it at a higher level.

So no more personal attacks at MT or anyone else, I don't agree with hardly anything he says but I do think his opinon should be heard. Without the personal attacks that is at him or from him.
Thanks


----------



## Robert A. Langager

racer66 said:


> Its obvious why Kenny locked the thread, MT PM'd him whining and being from the same mold Kenny swung his bat.


That is just as rediculous as the junk that MT spews forth. I thought the liberals were the conspiracy theorists? If that were the case I would be in here swinging my bat all the time. Believe what you want if it will make you feel better.


----------



## Bobm

new baby sleep deprivation already creeping up on you??? :wink:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Bobm said:


> new baby sleep deprivation already creeping up on you??? :wink:


Dear lord! You got it there! I have moved out to the couch. I really admire my wife. She is one tough mofo. I would lose my mind.


----------



## Bobm

They are programmed for it we aren't, trust me I have five of them.

Encourage breastfeeding that will get you out of most of it and its good for both of them!

If you need a little encouragement realize it will pass and when you look back on it you will laugh. The first couple weeks are the worst. It can be real rough at the time, women are atleast twice as tough as us, thank god they aren't as big or we would all be in deep ****....

You ought to get her mother there to help her if they get along. Its the only thing mothers in law are good for! And for some strange reason they actually like babies :roll:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

We are doing the breastfeeding thing. It gets me off the hook for the feedings every 3 hours.

Mother in-law will be here in 10 days!

I disarmed the wife earlier this week. I was like, you don't really need this .44 magnum for a while.


----------



## Bobm

ABBK and MT drop the personal attacks against the Moderators and each other, this thread as interesting when it was about the title of the thread.

I deleted the last four posts of that nature and I hate doing that, so does Ken, you guys have to follow the rules period.

This forum is alot of fun and informative when we all follow the rules

Its a hard call when we have to do delete or lock a thread so don't force it we don't want to do that anymore than the participant want us to.

Thanks


----------



## Bobm

Robert just help her until grandma gets there, things will smooth out significantly once you all get in the new routine, just think the light at the end of the tunnel is really a train (otherwise known as a teenager) :beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer

8)


----------

