The attention a candidate receives has less to do with the candidate and their qualifications and more to do with who the media either endorses or who is more ratings friendly.  Once upon a time, there were many independent newspapers and reporters competing and they had to work to be successful.  Now in the era of 24hr news coverage, we actually get less news and more entertainment.  To continue to be successful, the media simply conglomerates.  In any other industry, it would be an antitrust violation.

Unfortunately and at least partly due to McCain, money drives both the media and elections.  I don't know how much ultimate power MoveOn.org and Soros et al have on elections, but there is no doubt they are influential.  Somebody said we were a country of majority rule in days past.  Actually, we were a country where our government was restrained by the constitution to a limited set of functions and responsibilities.  The constitution no longer effectively restrains politicians who get elected to national office.  State level politicians don't complain as much as they should, because they fully hope to hit the national level one day.

FeedFwd said:

The attention a candidate receives has less to do with the candidate and their qualifications and more to do with who the media either endorses or who is more ratings friendly.  Once upon a time, there were many independent newspapers and reporters competing and they had to work to be successful.  Now in the era of 24hr news coverage, we actually get less news and more entertainment.  To continue to be successful, the media simply conglomerates.  In any other industry, it would be an antitrust violation.

Unfortunately and at least partly due to McCain, money drives both the media and elections.  I don't know how much ultimate power MoveOn.org and Soros et al have on elections, but there is no doubt they are influential.  Somebody said we were a country of majority rule in days past.  Actually, we were a country where our government was restrained by the constitution to a limited set of functions and responsibilities.  The constitution no longer effectively restrains politicians who get elected to national office.  State level politicians don't complain as much as they should, because they fully hope to hit the national level one day.

Antitrust my a**?  Explain then why if there is an increase in oil prices that across the board gasoline prices rise and FAST, almost immediately, yet when the cost of oil goes down we're lucky to see half of that increase go away. Also what ever happened to the vendor that has large quantities  and is able to sell at a dramatically lower price? We need to start screaming bloody murder that there needs to be More Nuclear Plants, More Refineries, More Drilling for Our Own Oil Resources, and for Industries that Locate Here, they will have The Best Tax Breaks and Incentives to Be Here and Stay Here, bar none. 

OK, perhaps I was a bit over the top... After all, Exxon and Mobil were allowed to merge (after disposing of certain assets that were considered in violation of anti-trust restrictions) as were other oil companies.  Gasoline prices rise and fall as a result of many factors.  One study I saw concluded that there was not much difference in how fast they went up vs how fast they went down, but that consumers were more aware of the rise vs the fall and developed the perception that it was so.  I don't remember exactly where I saw it, let alone have a link, but I remember it being a credible reference.  Also, futures markets are a big influence on prices.  I think the natural inclination of investors and speculators is to react quickly to a price increase and react more conservatively to a price decrease.

In any case, my point was not about anti-trust law or the oil business, but about why candidates get the coverage they get.  Did you disagree with that part of my post?

FeedFwd said:

OK, perhaps I was a bit over the top... After all, Exxon and Mobil were allowed to merge (after disposing of certain assets that were considered in violation of anti-trust restrictions) as were other oil companies.  Gasoline prices rise and fall as a result of many factors.  One study I saw concluded that there was not much difference in how fast they went up vs how fast they went down, but that consumers were more aware of the rise vs the fall and developed the perception that it was so.  I don't remember exactly where I saw it, let alone have a link, but I remember it being a credible reference.  Also, futures markets are a big influence on prices.  I think the natural inclination of investors and speculators is to react quickly to a price increase and react more conservatively to a price decrease.

In any case, my point was not about anti-trust law or the oil business, but about why candidates get the coverage they get.  Did you disagree with that part of my post?

Not to keep hammering gas prices here in that this is not the thread to do so, but I distinctly remember gas prices were at $2.67 per gallon last June, even lower in Texas, and just the Christmas before 2006 the prices were $1.97 in Texas.  We had 2 oil increases for those two periods of time, and a short while later  gas prices for the first time in our history went over $3 per gallon.  The prices NEVER went back down to $2.60's or $1.90's and if they got into the  $2.20's for that 1st. increase, or the $2.70's  on the 2nd. we were lucky.  I'm almost willing to wagger you that we'll never see the price for a gallon of gas below $3 ever again. At least not consistently, and only in isolated areas.

As for your other point.  Somewhat so.  How could any news network be completely unbiased?  Fox tries, but even so they're labeled otherwise also.

Has anybody heard about Oil Shale Deposits located in the Colorado Green River Basin - Also located in Canada.  The estimates say we have the equivilant of 3-6 trillion barrels of Oil - the extraction method is now improved to a point where we could begin major extraction.  The question, WHY and WHEN will we begin extraction?

Energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of synthetic crude oil produced from Green River oil shale

Adam R. Brandt

Oil shale is seen as a potential “backstop” resource, or a resource that will be relied upon when conventional reserves of oil are depleted. It is abundant and domestically available. These factors are behind the current effort underway within the Bureau of Land Management to support oil shale R&D.

Oil shale production has historically entailed a heavy environmental burden, with traditional methods of production emitting high levels of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. This analysis compares two oil shale production processes. The first is the in-situ conversion process (ICP), developed by Shell oil. The second is a mine and retort process using an open pit mine and the Alberta Taciuk Processor, or ATP, retort.

In these analyses, I first estimate the energy inputs and outputs of the oil shale production process. Second, I calculate the greenhouse gas emissions from these two processes.

Working papers:

Converting Green River oil shale to liquid fuels with the Shell in situ conversion process: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions - Paper submitted to Environmental Science and Technology (2/21/08)

Converting Green River oil shale to liquid fuels with the Alberta Taciuk Processor: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions - Working paper [pdf]

Presentations:

This work was presented at the 27th Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines, October 17th, 2007 [pdf of presentation].

Press:

A short piece on oil shale in Environmental Science and Technology featuring my working papers.

ErnieGs said:

 

Has anybody heard about Oil Shale Deposits located in the Colorado Green River Basin - Also located in Canada.  The estimates say we have the equivilant of 3-6 trillion barrels of Oil - the extraction method is now improved to a point where we could begin major extraction.  The question, WHY and WHEN will we begin extraction?

Energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of synthetic crude oil produced from Green River oil shale

Adam R. Brandt

---

Oil shale is seen as a potential “backstop” resource, or a resource that will be relied upon when conventional reserves of oil are depleted. It is abundant and domestically available. These factors are behind the current effort underway within the Bureau of Land Management to support oil shale R&D.

Oil shale production has historically entailed a heavy environmental burden, with traditional methods of production emitting high levels of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases. This analysis compares two oil shale production processes. The first is the in-situ conversion process (ICP), developed by Shell oil. The second is a mine and retort process using an open pit mine and the Alberta Taciuk Processor, or ATP, retort.

In these analyses, I first estimate the energy inputs and outputs of the oil shale production process. Second, I calculate the greenhouse gas emissions from these two processes.

Working papers:

Converting Green River oil shale to liquid fuels with the Shell in situ conversion process: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions - Paper submitted to Environmental Science and Technology (2/21/08)

Converting Green River oil shale to liquid fuels with the Alberta Taciuk Processor: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions - Working paper [pdf]

Presentations:

This work was presented at the 27th Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines, October 17th, 2007 [pdf of presentation].

Press:

A short piece on oil shale in Environmental Science and Technology featuring my working papers.

Is it "cost effective"?  Would we be better off pursuing alternative sources of energy, esp. hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, tidal, and geo-thermal?  Water cover 2/3 rds. of our planet, and both Hydogen and Oxygen are tremendous sources of potential energy, and practically unlimited, and very clean.  

We've gotten off on a tangent on this thread, but maybe we could tie it in by asking just exactly where is the Ob man in respect to this energy dilemma that faces the survival of our nation, and what does he truly espouse and will this be as scary as his religious affiliations? 

>>just exactly where is the Ob man in respect to this energy dilemma that faces the survival of our nation, and what does he truly espouse and will this be as scary as his religious affiliations?<< 

That's part of my point.  Where does he stand on anything, and can we believe what he says?  I haven't heard any actual plans for anything.  All he keeps saying is "We are the change we've been waiting for."   Well, THAT certainly spells it all out, doesn't it?

Gerald,

you said: "As for your other point.  Somewhat so.  How could any news network be completely unbiased?  Fox tries, but even so they're labeled otherwise also."

I say: Individuals have biases and so do businesses and other organizations.  Networks could strive to be balanced and or admit/advertise their bias.  Instead, most networks either hide their bias or are so inbred they don't even recognize their bias.  The reason is that they won't hire anybody who doesn't agree with them, except for an occasional token.  The token opposition is usually marginalized or horse-collared, or both.  News doesn't have to be unbiased, but back in the day when many cities had 2 or more newspapers all competing for customers, they had to develop a subscriber base by either offering contrarian articles or doing better research and reporting.  TV developed with "news" positioned as a public service offering partially in exchange for the rights to broadcast on a public frequency.  It never faced the competitive pressure that old time newspapers did in spite of what they tell you.

Then you said:"Water cover 2/3 rds. of our planet, and both Hydogen and Oxygen are tremendous sources of potential energy, and practically unlimited, and very clean."

I say: While that is true, there is a thing called conservation of energy and there is no perpetual motion machine.  Hydrogen and oxygen are bound up in water molecules.  The energy given off when H2 is oxidized by O2 into water must be supplied in order to break the bond and convert H2O into H2 and O2.  Furthermore, since the reaction between H2 and O2 producing water is not ideally reversible, there is a gain in entropy and it will take more energy to go backward.  In thermodynamic terms, the potential energy of hydrogen and oxygen in water is less than zero.  Some other things might interest you.  A boiler producing steam is not likely to be more than 85% efficient.  Using the same fuel to produce electricity in a steam driven turbo-generator like most commercial utilities use is only going to be 60% efficient.  Co-generators with a use for the heat otherwise lost condensing steam can achieve levels as high as 80% efficiency, which is why co-generation is attractive.  Pure grain ethanol is nearly a wash with respect to energy.  That is, it takes almost as much energy to produce 100% ethanol from corn as you end up with in the ethanol.  Oil refining, on the other hand consumes approximately 15% of the energy in the crude to produce a full slate of products from LPG and gasoline to jet fuel and diesel to heavy oils and asphalt.