Judge Arizona Illegal Immigration Ruling

"Just another liberal idiot. Don't you think?"

Hey folks,

"So gov. Brewer is taking this to the 9th circus court as you call it. I bet it will stand there."

Uh, yeah. But you are not really going to like me here in a second. Happy Friday to you. Since it is Friday, time to go to the Emails. I got a few, all dealing with Judge Susan Bolton's Ruling to stave off provisions of the New Arizona Law, dealing with Illegal Aliens.

Many are extremely upset over this, and have resulted to calling the Judge Names and saying that she is nothing more than a Liberal Hack, perhaps even pressured by Obama and Crew to Rule this way.

All this MAY be true. However, and some of you are about to be VERY unhappy with me here, I think she may have done the right thing, LEGALLY, here. {Sigh} I know, I know, I'm an Idiot. Right? Look, you all know where I stand on this. I applaud Gov Brewer's decision, and her boldness on this issue. I agree, along with 70 plus percent of the rest of you, that this is not only logical, and commonsense, but it is needed is EVERY State. It really is simple, come here legally, we welcome you with open arms. Don't and you are a CRIMINAL.

I agree, that this Arizona Law, as we have talked about. I even posted it, is nothing more than a Law to ENFORCE Federal Law. It is NOT opposite to the Federal Law. It is not opposed to it. It does not "override it." It IS a mirror image of it.

OK. Here we go. Ready? There are seven lawsuits are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April. The Law went into effect Thursday. SEVEN. Including of course, Obama and Crew. They ALL, take issue with requiring the Police to check the Immigration Status of those arrested for other crimes. Nothing wrong with that, but they ALL object to that. They ALL object to Immigrants being forced to, like everyone else here, to carry ID with them. Try to rent a Car, write a Check, buy Cigarettes, Beer, go to do whatever on a daily bases, and someone will ask to see your ID. Now, thanks to this Ruling, Illegals do not have to. They ALL object to the no congregating in Public Places, {Standing on Corners, at Store Fronts, ETC. looking for day work}

So this Judge said, since this Law is about to go into effect, and the Judge seems to agree with some of the objections, even though she can not rule on them, she finds MERIT with them, she basically said, until these court cases are settled, you cannot enforce these certain provisions. She put THEM on hold. NOT the entire Law. Once decided, this Law and ALL Provisions can CLEARLY go into effect. She did NOT Rule this Law unconstitutional, nor did she Bar the entire Law, just those provisions that SEVEN Active Lawsuits are dealing with.

Basically, what she did, was hit the Pause Button. Imagine if you will, this Law goes into effect and hundreds of arrests are made, and these Provisions are followed, because it IS the Cops job to enforce the Law. Then, some Idiot Judge Rules it unconstitutional, and now all these cases would have to be revisited. The Cop, County, State, and everyone else will be sued. It would be a mess. So this Judge, said lets wait to see how these Cases DEALING with it, plays out FIRST.

Now before you flood my Email with the Judge's words, here is the complete Ruling. I understand what she said. I understand that in some of this, she does seem to agree with the Obama Regime. I understand that it appears she may have bought into the opposition's argument. Yet, again, she did not Rule the Law Unconstitutional, nor did she say "You can not enforce any of it. She in essence, said, lets wait to see what happens.

No matter who wins these Lawsuits, the opposition WILL appeal, and it WILL end up in the Supreme Court. Gov. Brewers response?



You know that it doesn't matter if the Left is shot down or not. They will take it all the way. As we have seen, they care not for the rule of Law to begin with. Gov. Brewer will take it all the way. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

I know that this Judge was appointed by Clinton. That's all I really know about her. Is she a Lib Loon? Maybe. Did the Obama Regime get to her? Maybe. That would not be beyond possible. But from a LEGAL stand point? Sorry. But I think she may have done the right thing.

Peter

Note: From The Emails is a weekly Segment every Friday, or occasionally anytime, that appears here at the OPNTalk Blog. Please feel free to Email any Articles, Comments, Thoughts, Whatever, that you may like to share to opntalk@gmail.com As always, you never know what you may see here.

New Version Of Same Old Energy Killing / Job Killing Bill

Here we go again.

Hey folks,

So, as we discussed yesterday, there is no oil out there. None to really speak of. There is no reason whatsoever to shut down all Drilling. Hopefully, the New Judges and Courts hearing the cases will say the same thing. There is only one reason for the Drilling Moratorium, other than pure Politics.

Jack Gerard, President of API, laid out a CLEAR and concise statement on what Harry Reid's NEW Version of the same old Energy and Job Killing Bill will actually do. Here it is.

Senate Energy Bill Threatens Jobs, Economic Growth

By Jack Gerard Tuesday 27 July 2010

The Senate bill unveiled today by Majority Leader Harry Reid moves forward with provisions that will cost American jobs, slow economic growth and will place our energy security at risk.

While full details of the Senate bill are not yet available, the liability provision sticks out as a jobs killer. Requiring an unattainable level of insurance coverage for domestic energy producers on the Outer Continental Shelf will force the vast majority of American companies out of U.S. waters, according to insurers.

This would cut domestic production, kill American jobs, slow economic growth and cost billions in federal oil and natural gas revenues.

Even those that could self insure operations would see costs skyrocket, driving investments out of the United States, further hurting our economy, employment and energy security, according to a recent analysis by Wood Mackenzie.

While we are glad that the bill recognizes the need to analyze the economic repercussions of the current deepwater moratorium, a better tack would have been to repeal it.

Majority Leader Reid suggests his bill will create 150,000 new jobs, but our analysis indicates that failing to develop in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico will cost more than that - 175,000 jobs, the majority of them in already hard-hit Gulf Coast communities.

Clearly, that is not a win for Americans.

Pretty easy for anyone with an IQ above 10 to understand. Again, I ask you this. No Oil. No disaster. No other DRILLING problems. Why do we need this?
Peter

Nature Helping Out, Or, Never As Bad As Portrayed

Can't find the Oil.

Hey folks,

We have a mystery in today's From The Energy Front segment. Remember this? Some got in hot water saying this. When dealing in reality, some tried to tell you how "bad" this Oil Accident really was. They said that if you fill a bathtub with water, the amount of oil in that bathtub to equal the spill in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't fill a thimble.

In the face of the Obama Administration telling us this is the worse disaster in Human History, pretty much, CNBC posted this. If the inside of a Football Stadium, were the Gulf of Mexico, the amount of oil that's leaked so far would be equivalent to a 24-ounce can of beer.

Now do not get me or anyone else wrong here. It is bad. It should have never happened. But worse disaster EVER? This one accident in over 60 years of drilling, and it is a reason to shut down ALL Off shore Drilling? Hardly.

Then you have one other fact that the Obama Regime hates to state. Nature is resilient. Natural seeps from thousands of spots from the Pacific Ocean to the North Sea account for about 45 percent of all oil entering the oceans in a typical year, according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. It has been said that these are larger than this spill itself, and occur NATURALLY. So what happens to all that Oil?

The Oceans absorb it. A host of Microbes can eat oil and gas, especially light compounds such as gasoline. The Ocean breaks it up, and it EVAPORATES. Oil is as natural as the Water in the Ocean itself.

So now that the Well is Capped, and bad for Obama who tried to do seemingly EVERYTHING he could to slow down the process of ending the Spill, the Oil is disappearing. Those trying to truly help clean it up, reporters trying to further agenda's, and the Obama Regime, {Which is what Howard Dean is now calling it even}are all having trouble finding it. According to ABC News - BP Oil Spill: Clean-Up Crews Can't Find Crude in the Gulf By JEFFREY KOFMAN

For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it.

Why? OH I don't know, maybe because, some evaporated and Oceans absorb it. A host of Microbes can eat oil and gas, especially light compounds such as gasoline and what was spilled from the well?

At its peak last month, the oil slick was the size of Kansas, but it has been rapidly shrinking, now down to the size of New Hampshire.

Today, ABC News surveyed a marsh area and found none, and even on a flight out to the rig site Sunday with the Coast Guard, there was no oil to be seen

"That oil is somewhere. It didn't just disappear," said Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser.

Quick, someone call Sherlock Holmes. Someone stole the Oil. Those dastardly Oil Companies did it. I know they did. Maybe Bush. Yes, Bush. Bush and Cheney. During the storm, they rowed in and stole the Oil to make Obama look bad. Yeah, that's it. Bush did it.

Salvador Cepriano is one of the men searching for crude. Cepriano, a shrimper, has been laying out boom with his boat, but he's found that there's no oil to catch.

"I think it is underneath the water. It's in between the bottom and the top of the water," Cepriano said.

Yeah, just lounging out in the middle. Tired of floating I guess.

Even the federal government admits that locating the oil has become a problem.

"It is becoming a very elusive bunch of oil for us to find," said National Incident Cmdr. Thad Allen.

{Sigh} Isn't this a GOOD thing?

The numbers don't lie: two weeks ago, skimmers picked up about 25,000 barrels of oily water. Last Thursday, they gathered just 200 barrels.

Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment.

"[It's] mother nature doing her job," said Ed Overton, a professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

Which is what some got ridiculed for saying this would happen. They even admit it now.

The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean's surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves.

Yet have to end this story with the ominous?

Experts stress that even though there's less and less oil as time goes on, there's still plenty around the spill site. And in the long term, no one knows what the impact of those hundreds of millions of gallons will be, deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

You know something else that will come from all this? We will have NEW Technologies created to deal with this type of thing in the future. This is bad. It should have never happened. We STILL need to learn WHY. But Worse disaster in history? Hardly. Reason to stop ALL Off Shore Drilling? No.

Thank you Mother Nature.
Peter

Dems Move On To Campaigning, At Odds With Pelosi

Preview For Sunday 072510

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Big Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. Glad to see ya. I am of course your Host, your Provocateur of thought himself, Peter Carlock. We have a lot of ground to cover today.

First up, in just a minute, I will be posting the Transcript of the API / Blogger Conference call that took place this past Thursday, July 22, 2010. Yes, yours truly had to sit out AGAIN. Yet, there is, as always, a WEALTH of information that you will not get anywhere else. REAL information. REAL FACTS. The simple truth. It's pretty long, but well worth the read. I will be doing EVERYTHING in my power to make the next one.

Did you catch this? Got to love this one. According to our lustrous VP, the Dems have caused enough damage for now. They will be moving on to Campaigning, with the hopes of staying in power to do even more damage. According to The Hill - Biden: 'The heavy lifting is over' By Michael O'Brien - 07/23/10 08:56 AM ET

The "heavy lifting is over" when it comes to the Obama administration's legislative priorities this year, Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday evening.

Biden said now that Wall Street reform is finished and signed into law, the administration could go out and make its political case for its accomplishment.

“Now that the heavy lifting is over, we can go out and make our case,” Biden said at a fundraiser in North Carolina, according to a pool report.

"So since we screwed you all, now we will tell you why it's good for you, and why you need to keep us in power to, uh, 'help you' more."{Laughing} They are hoping that the MILLIONS of you that are out of work will Vote to keep them in. You know, so you keep getting Welfare and Unemployment. Forget the fact it was THEM that put you in that position to begin with.

Coming right up today?

API / Blogger Conference Call 072210

A Dangerous World With an Incompetent American Leader

Want To Eat Healthy, You Are Mentally Diseased

DLA For Sunday 072510

IWA For Sunday 072510

Oh just real quick. Talking about desperation? The State Run MMD are getting tired of being called out for ignoring real news, making up false news, and towing the Democrat Party Lines. They want Bloggers "Controlled."

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the "mixed blessing of the internet," and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

"There are so many great things that the internet does and has to offer, but at the same time, Kyra, as you know, there is this dark side," Roberts said. "Imagine what would have happened if we hadn't taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said."

But Phillips replied that the mainstream media "can't always do that."

"There's going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable," Phillips said. "How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they're actually given credibility, which is crazy. They're a bunch of cowards, they're just people seeking attention."

Phillips demanded to know what Andrew Keen thought needed to be done. Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture," who suggested that there needs to be an internet "gatekeeper," had been interviewed by Roberts and quoted in the segment.

"Well what Andrew talked about with me was this idea of a gatekeeper but there are huge first amendment rights that come into play here - freedom of speech and all that. And he said the people who need to be the gatekeepers are the media to check into these stories," said Roberts.

These people are nothing more than a Joke anymore. Hey, Kyra Phillips and John Roberts, try reporting NEWS. You know, FACTS AND TRUTH, and let your viewers decide. How about reporting on the Justice Department saying they will not Prosecute Black Defendants? Or the New Black Panthers calling for the MURDER of White People and their babies? How about the fact that a lot of what Obama and Crew are doing is not even Constitutional? What about,,,well,,that is what WE are for. The New Media. Why? You folks are not doing your jobs.

Then there is this. Seems, since it is an election year, and since a lot of you are hurting out there, thanks to Obama and the Loons Policies, some Democrats want to extend Bush's Tax Cuts. For EVERYONE. Why? They work. According to Bloomberg - Bernanke Says Extending Bush's Tax Cuts Would Maintain Economic Stimulus

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said extending at least some of the tax cuts set to expire this year would help strengthen a U.S. economy still in need of stimulus and urged offsetting the move with increased revenue or lower spending.

“In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy,” Bernanke said yesterday under questioning from the House Financial Services Committee’s senior Republican. “There are many ways to do that. This is one way.”

Because they WORK. But in order for them to work, you have to STOP SPENDING. He even admits that. Yet, we already know where Nancy Pelosi stands.

Folks, tax cuts INCREASE income to the Government, create jobs, gives people more disposable income, that helps the Economy. Works EVERY TIME it is tried. Remember During a WAR, Bush Deficit was 700 Million. Now, that's to Obama? 14 TRILLION. That is if we do not stop the insanity, and repeal a lot of this Bunk.

Like I said, we have a lot to cover today, so let's get started. Remember you can follow along on Twitter - peteropntalk, Facebook - Peter Carlock, Tom Sullivan Radio Listener's Club, and as always, you can Email me at opntalk@gmail.com. Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
The Hill - Biden: 'The heavy lifting is over'
News Busters - CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'
Bloomberg - Bernanke Says Extending Bush's Tax Cuts Would Maintain Economic Stimulus

API / Blogger Conference Call 072210

API / Blogger Conference Call Transcript.


Hey folks,

Here it is.

Bloggers on the call included
Brian Westenhaus from New Energy and Fuel,
Carter Wood from Shopfloor.org,
Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum,
Geoff Styles from Energy Outlook,
Jazz Shaw from The Moderate Voice,
Joy McCann from Little Miss Attila,
Marlo Lewis from OpenMarket.org,
Merv Benson from Prairie Pundit,
Pejman Yousefzadeh from The New Ledger,
Steve Maley from RedState,
Tim Hurst from Ecopolitology

00:12 MS. VAN RYAN: It sounds like we have quite a few people on the call. This is Jane Van Ryan for those of you who are just joining us. And I have several people in the room with me here at API and Tim Considine, the author of a new study on the Marcellus shale, who also has dialed in. And I think John Felmy is dialing in as well, who is traveling in Houston.

Many of you have talked to John in the past. He is our chief economist here at API. Let’s start the call today by first finding out who all we have on the phone. A number of you indicated– a number of bloggers, I should say– indicated that they intended to be on the call. Let’s see if we can get a quick roll from everyone. Who would like to go first?

00:58 GAIL TVERBERG: This is Gail from the Oil Drum.

01:00 MS. VAN RYAN: Great. Thank you, Gail.

01:07 BRIAN WESTENHAUS: Brian Westenhaus.

01:08 MS. VAN RYAN: Hey, Brian. I’m glad you could join us. Who else is on?

01:12 CARTER WOOD: Here. Well, we’ve got the Ecuador trip revisited because Carter is on the line, too.

01:16 MS. VAN RYAN: Carter, hey, nice to have you on the line. Anyone else?

01:22 STEVE MALEY: Steve Maley with Redstate.com.

01:24 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes, Steve. Thank you so much for joining us. And who else do we have?

01:29 JAZZ SHAW: Hey, Jane, it’s Jazz.

01:30 MS. VAN RYAN: Hey, Jazz. Good. All right. And who else?

01:37 GEOFF STYLES: Geoff Styles, Energy Outlook.

01:39 MS. VAN RYAN: Wonderful, Geoff. Keep going. I know there are more of you.

And who hasn’t told us that they’re on line yet?

01:54 TIM HURST: This is Tim Hurst from Ecopolitology.

01:56 MS. VAN RYAN: Great. Thank you, Tim. Nice to hear your voice. Anyone else? I’m expecting several more bloggers so maybe they’ll be joining us shortly. I think you all know the rules for our blogger conference call: Everything is recorded; everything is on the record. The audio file and the transcript will be provided online hopefully as early as tomorrow afternoon. It always takes us a little while to get the transcript provided.

We’re happy to talk about most any questions that you might have. You’ve seen a partial list of the people who are going to be participating in the call today as speakers, who can provide information. And there is another individual who just walked in that I want to introduce to you. He is not on the list that I provided to you but I think, if you’re comfortable with this, Marty, I’m going to put you upfront and you can explain what’s happening on the Hill. This gentleman is Marty Durbin. He is in charge of our federal relations initiatives here at API and of course he’s monitoring the Hill activities very, very carefully today. So Marty, why don’t we start with you?

03:10 MARTY DURBIN: Okay. Sure. Thanks, Jane. I’m just kind of being updated by the minute here– you know, literally, getting these e-mails, articles from Roll Call, The Hill and what have you. But the Senate is really where people are paying the most attention right now. Sen. Reid has been trying to determine whether they can bring a bill to the floor next week or the following week before they leave for August recess. The plan for months now has been to try to put a bill up there that would address climate and energy and, now, more recently, the oil spill issues.

They appear to have thrown the towel in on being able to put climate on the floor before the August recess. At best they can have a very narrow energy bill. And, frankly, I’m still skeptical that they can even get any of the energy provisions on the floor– which kind of leaves you with the oil spill issues and how much they can put on the floor. And we really are talking about next week.

The Democratic Caucus has been meeting now for the last hour and they’re just right now having a press conference with Sen. Reid, Sen. Kerry and Carol Browner. And we’ll know more probably in about an hour or so because then they’re going to begin another leadership meeting to determine what they’re going to do next week.

We do hear that they will– if they do get into the oil spill -- it will probably stay focused on two main areas, one being the reorganization of the Department of the Interior and then beefing up some regulations of offshore– offshore drilling and then liability that has been debated in the Senate in the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Again, that’s very fluid right now. And the Senate calendar is very clogged. They’re trying to finish work on a small business bill this week; they have a supplemental appropriations bill. There are a few other things hanging out there. And then, before they leave, they have to– they intend to approve the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. So that’s kind of the lay of the land right now in the Senate. That’s really what we’re paying more attention to. I don’t want to dismiss the House because they’re also scrambling, trying to get an oil-spill related bill onto the floor next week before they leave. They’re leaving next week. The Senate stays around for an additional week after, so the first week of August.

05:45 MS. VAN RYAN: That gives you a quick summary. And because of everything happening on the Hill, that’s one of the reasons why we wanted to have the blogger conference call today, this week. And, of course, I’ve sent you all a number of materials involving tax issues, oil spill liability, Marcellus shale, even some polling results that we got yesterday. So with that, I just want to open this, open the floor to your questions. You can ask anything that you have on your mind, anything that you’re interested in and we’ll do our best to answer your questions. Who would like to go first? Oh, and please identify yourselves.

06:19 MS. TVERBERG: This is Gail. I was just going to ask – you mentioned the oil-spill liability. To what extent do you think the choice or the limit is going to make a difference on which companies are willing to drill in the Gulf? I know there has been talk that having too high a limit is going to eliminate the smaller companies from play.

06:44 MR. DURBIN: If I can – this is Marty. Frankly it will make a big difference. Essentially, the higher you put the liability limit the fewer people that are going to be economically able to continue to produce in the Gulf.

Now, it’s a – it gets a little complicated because there’s essentially two different issues: You know, there is raising the cap on liability; there has been a lot of focus around a $75 million cap on economic damages. That’s just, you know, once BP in this case has finished cleaning up everything, statutorily, as long as they aren’t found to have been reckless or negligent or what have you, there is a $75 million cap on economic damages for, you know, restaurants and everyone else that was affected.

The bigger issue for companies that are operating offshore, what they call the financial assurance requirements, where you have to get a certificate of financial responsibility. That is generally –currently, in the range of $35 million to $150 million. Even if you have a very high cap on the economic damages, yet you have a reasonable financial responsibility in that, it won’t put as many people out of play.

And, again, unfortunately, those proposals out there right now are very unreasonable. They’ll either eliminate the cap, put the financial responsibility over a billion dollars. That essentially means you’re going to be down to the largest privately owned companies and nationally owned companies.

08:25 MS. TVERBERG: Right, and the nationally owned companies could very well be somebody from overseas, of course.

08:31 MR. DURBIN: Correct.

08:35 MS. VAN RYAN: Another question, please? You’re all being too kind, too courteous of one another. Don’t hesitate.

08:53 MR. WOOD: Well, this is Carter at the National Association of Manufacturers. I’m wondering if you could give us an update on the moratorium in the Gulf. I haven’t had a chance to read up on the rally yesterday, but a sense of the mobility of drilling rigs. That’s one thing I don’t really have a good understanding of, how easy it is to just up and leave. So kind of just a general discussion of the moratorium and the effect it has on the industry.

09:20 ANDY RADFORD: This is Andy Radford with our upstream department. You know, the rigs can and some already have chosen to leave the Gulf of Mexico. We have something around 30, 33 rigs that have been impacted in deep water. I think two or three of those have already announced plans to leave. The others have been successful in working out some sort of agreements with the companies as part of a reduced rate to keep the rig in the Gulf while they wait this moratorium out, until we figure out if we can – hello?

Oh, sorry.

10:07 MS. VAN RYAN: Go right ahead, Andy.

10:10 MR. RADFORD: Until we figure out if we can appease the – you know, meet the requirements set forth by the Department of the Interior to get back to work before the November 30th deadline. I think if it had been – you know, if companies get signals that November 30th is going to stretch on even after we make an earnest effort to do what’s required I think you’re going to see more drilling companies just say, we’re going to have to move elsewhere. We really can’t afford to sit idle that long.

10:41 RICHARD RANGER: This is Richard Ranger, also of the upstream group. And, ultimately, it’s really a matter of the contractual arrangements between the companies that own and operate the rigs and the oil and natural gas-producing companies that own the leases. And, as Andy says, in some cases, the companies owning the leases are at least for the time being successful in negotiating arrangements that involve some compensation to the drilling companies to keep their rigs here. But they’re in business to employ those rigs. And, depending upon the length of the moratorium and depending upon what develops in other operating areas in the world, there may yet to be some strong financial incentives for one or more of those – the drilling rig operating companies to consider relocating those rigs.
So the longer this moratorium continues, the more vulnerable our offshore industry is because there is a finite number of rigs in the world that are capable of drilling in these deep-water areas, these areas that have supplied so much of America’s domestic crude oil production in recent years.

11:57 MR. WOOD: Has API been involved in, say, an amicus brief or some function like that with the legal proceedings?

12:06 MR. RADFORD: Concerning the moratorium, we’re not involved in any legal cases of the moratorium at this point.

12:15 MR. WOOD: Okay. Do you have any sense of how quickly those might be resolved, I’m assuming every time a moratorium is announced there will be a lawsuit that will strike it down and then we’ll have another moratorium?

12:24 MR. RADFORD: Yeah, a company just filed suit I believe yesterday on the second moratorium. The first moratorium has been struck down. But the court case goes on. The legal machinations around it are a little bit complex.

12:42 MR. RANGER: And the other thing we’ve seen so far is that although the judges may rule the moratorium out of order and the administration probably turns around and issues another moratorium. So we’re in a bit of an Avalon Hill game whose outcome isn’t completely knowable just yet.

13:07 MS. VAN RYAN: Follow-up questions to that?

13:10 MS. TVERBERG: Could you just tell us where would these drilling rigs likely go? I mean, where is there sufficient demand that they really want more drilling rigs right now? Isn’t there may be a surplus of drilling rigs right now?

13:24 MR. RADFORD: Actually there’s a number of deep-water basins in close proximity to – relatively close – West Africa and Brazil are the two most obvious candidates where these rigs would go. The ones that have announced they’re leaving, one is going to Egypt and I think the other one is going to Angola.

So but Brazil has, you know, great designs on exploring and developing their deep water and have – there are a number of rigs currently under construction that plan to go to work in Brazil in the order of 20 rigs. So we’re looking at a big market there. And they could get a jump on their exploration and development program and get started a little early if these rigs move out of the Gulf.

14:12 MR. RANGER: And with Brazil, Gail, it’s important to recognize, too, that Petrobras, their national oil company, is a very significant player. So they have both a policy and domestic resource focus and operate under a bit different business rules. So they might be more inclined to mobilize more quickly to try to induce one or more of these rigs to come down to Brazil from the Gulf of Mexico. Again, that’s speculation at this point depending upon the length of the moratorium and the degree to which other players – other national oil companies, other resource nations – consider this a situation to begin to take advantage of.

15:00 ROBIN RORICK: There is actually an article in the Post today about this issue, talking about how the rig that Andy talked about is moving to Egypt and really the focus of the article is all about, really, how other countries like Norway, Egypt, Brazil are moving full steam ahead on their deep-water projects recognizing that there is now some increased [rig] supply that they could probably capitalize on. So the basic point of the article was, other countries aren’t slowing down and this is going to create a pinch here.

15:35 MS. VAN RYAN: That’s Robin Rorick, by the way.

15:37 MR. RORICK: Oh, I’m sorry.

15:38 MS. VAN RYAN: No problem.

15:41 MS. TVERBERG: Thank you.

15:44 MS. VAN RYAN: More questions? You all saw the tax information that we sent out. I think you have all probably seen the tax briefing paper. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that – in fact it’s written in some of the proposals – that taxes would be raised on the oil industry to pay for – we’re not sure what exactly. But I’ve got Stephen Comstock here, who can certainly address any issues about energy taxes.

16:16 MR. HURST: This is Tim Hurst from Ecopolitology. And I suppose my question is sort of tangentially tax-related. It’s really more about climate. So since it looks like there isn’t really going to be much in the way of climate action coming out of the Capitol this – at least before August and probably not until, you know, late this year, you know, it’s no secret that API has been opposed to a cap-and-trade and I believe opposed to the upstream cap-and-dividend, although I’m not entirely sure about that. Where does API sit on this sort of utility-only provision that’s kind of being kicked around right now? And is there – what does an API kind of deal look like?

17:11 RUSSELL JONES: This is Russell. I have to say that we don’t have a flat opposition to cap-and-trade. We did very much very clearly oppose the Waxman-Markey bill because of the way it was written. Looking forward at other bills, you know we’ve been interested in – you know, if the Senate could actually create a utility-only bill. But, not having seen one, we can’t react to one since we haven’t even seen one. But we’ve looked at a variety of approaches. We have members that support cap-and-trade. We have members that support a carbon-tax approach. So it really, for us, we need to look at whatever – we need to look at specific language to understand how it operates.

One of the issues that we’ve had with the structures of the bills like Waxman-Markey is the treatment of the petroleum consumers compared to other sectors of the economy like the electricity consumers. The Hill – the bills that have been written have very aggressively tried to protect electricity consumers from the impacts of higher prices caused by the allowances by giving them away for free, which is one of the great ironies of this in that all of the studies indicate that the cheapest way to reduce the emissions is in the electricity sector.

But, on the other hand, they have no interest, apparently, in offering similar protection for petroleum-product consumers. So we would think a level playing field is important. And that includes a level playing field for all consumers.

19:05 MS. VAN RYAN: Does that help, Tim?

19:07 MR. HURST: Yeah, that does. I actually had a little technical difficulty at the very beginning of that. What – how about cap-and-dividend? Did you comment on that? I actually fell off the call for a second.

19:19 MR. JONES: We haven’t – we don’t have a specific position on cap-and-dividend. I mean, we do have the Cantwell-Collins bill that’s out there. We’ve looked at it. Our members have looked at it. But until the Senate really starts looking at something like that seriously, again, it gets down to, how is a bill like that written? And we’d prefer to wait to see what the actual structure of a bill is.

19: 47 MR. HURST: Okay, thanks.

19:54 MS. TVERBERG: I have a different question. This is Gail, again. In terms of the prior, let’s say, I’m not sure exactly, regulation of companies that are drilling in the Gulf, I understand API has set standards, that they also do some things with monitoring. And how do you see this changing going forward? I know they’re still looking at new legislation, but what kind of things do you see as changing?

20:28 MR. RADFORD: I mean – this is Andy, Andy Radford, again. When you say “monitored,” as far as the government or API does that?

20:36 MS. TVERBERG: I didn’t think they did but there was one news report I saw that said something about so-and-so inspectors. And I thought they were talking about API. And that struck me as strange. I thought it would be government inspectors. Your involvement was in standards.

20:53 MR. RADFORD: Yes, we have our standards and recommended practices; some of them are incorporated into the regulations. The inspection function is carried out by the Minerals Management Service and now the BOEMER. (Laughter.)

21:12 MS. TVERBERG: They could have found something simpler, couldn’t they have?

12:15 MR. RADFORD: Yeah, but some of the changes we’ve seen so far have come in the form of Notice To Lessees that MMS has issued. There is the NTLO. There was an O4, an O5 and an O6. The one on NTLO5 contains some – basically in the areas of inspection and third-party verification of blowout preventer and well-control equipment, some new recommendations for secondary control systems and also new equipment, recommendations for new configurations of equipment, that will come and form.

A little down the road they’re going to be issuing interim rulemaking; we expect that in the next month or two. And that will set forth some new recommendations, new regulations for drilling equipment and practices.

And then, following that, there will be some more lengthy formal rulemaking once we – once they get the benefit of the investigations that are ongoing.

22:27 MS. TVERBERG: So this is what the agency that is succeeding MMS is going to be doing, right?

22:32 MR. RADFORD: Yes.

22:34 MS. TVERBERG: Thank you.

22:36 MS. VAN RYAN: Gail, one other thing: And I don’t know that you all have seen this. I ran out of time this morning myself and I could not send this out to you. But if you go to the blog, the “Energy Tomorrow” blog, you’ll see a blog posting put up maybe a couple of hours ago about this. One of the Notices To Lessees and operators deals with how you protect against blowout. And, interestingly enough, four of the major oil companies have gotten together and they’re planning to build and deploy a new containment system. They’re committing $1 billion to developing this system.

It’s pretty impressive. The idea is to have it basically in standby mode, from what I am reading, to keep it in the Gulf in the event that something like the Deepwater Horizon accident ever occurs again. That’s highly unlikely that something like that would happen, but at least the equipment then would be in position and deployable.

So that’s one way that the industry is trying to address some of the issues that have been brought to bear since the accident. So if you guys want to check that out, take a look at – I think it was a blog post that went up this morning and they’ve put one on top of it since then already but you can at least get some information and a diagram there.

23:52 MR. RANGER: We’ve also set up four taskforces that address various issues that have arisen as a result of the Deepwater Horizon. There’s a taskforce study on offshore equipment and one studying offshore operating procedures. Interim reports – I say interim – new reports from those taskforces, which went to the Secretary of Interior that were almost entirely incorporated into his recommendations to the president made in late March – late May, excuse me.

In addition, there are two other taskforces, one focused on source control – control of wells and well incidents – and then another one on oil spill response. And so there’s a tremendous amount of industry effort that involves people with expertise and experience from a multitude of different companies working together to try to ascertain what practices are available, what emerging technologies may exist and what basic technologies and procedures are reliable and improving, so as to build a better playbook really for operators in the deepwater, offshore environment.

25:32 MS. VAN RYAN: Anyone else have a question either related to that or anything else you have on your mind?

25:39 MR. MALEY: This is Steve Maley with Redstate. I was hoping to get out of this call a little more conversation about the tax law changes. Specifically there’s been some discussion about how treatment of foreign taxation affects domestic producers versus offshore, foreign-based companies. And also with changes to provisions like intangible drilling costs and percentage depletion. Have you done any quantification of what the impact is going to be on the supply picture from those changes?

26:23 STEPHEN COMSTOCK: This is Stephen.

26:24 MS. VAN RYAN: Stephen Comstock.

26:26 MR. COMSTOCK: Stephen Comstock, tax manager here at API. Let me take your second point first. We have been trying to pull together some information on the impacts of repealing IDC on production and investment in the domestic U.S. oil and gas arena. Percentage depletion not as much, but certainly with respect to IDC and 199 and so we’re currently working and trying to see if we can develop something that will give a little bit of substance to the statements that these things are considered to be a significant impact on the investment and capital that can be committed to oil and gas by many of the domestic oil and gas producers.

With respect to the second – or respect to your first point with the foreign issue. There is in the President’s budget and we’ve been hearing the issue being brought up both by Ways & Means and Senate Finance Committee and what it would – what the provision would do is it would modify the current rules that are in place that allow companies, specifically the U.S.-based oil and gas companies, the ability to use foreign taxes they pay abroad to offset the residual, sort of, U.S. taxes that they pay on that same income.

The U.S. taxes on a worldwide basis and so in order to allow our companies, U.S. companies, to remain competitive on a worldwide basis, you’re allowed a foreign tax credit. So if you operate in France and you pay taxes in France on that income, the U.S. will also tax that income, but to avoid a double taxation, the U.S. tax is offset – or you’re allowed to offset the U.S. tax by the tax you pay in France. The proposal would be to essentially restrict that for oil and gas companies.

So if you want kind of a plain example, imagine that every two weeks you get money withheld from your paycheck. You go on April 15th, file your return and you calculate your full amount of tax and then you offset that by the amount you withheld to get to the amount that you need to cut a check to the government for. Well, in our case, you wouldn’t get the full amount that you withheld. You would get a portion of that.

And the only reason why they – we haven’t got any good reason why they believe that this is necessary other than the fact that they claim that we’re getting credits for royalties instead of taxes that we pay. But frankly, the rules as they exist now prevent us from doing that. If it is a royalty, we are unable under the current rules and current statutes to be able to claim that as a credit.

The way the rules are set up is that in fact with U.S.-based oil and gas companies, we have multiple sets of rules that other industries do not have with the way in which we have to – or the way in which we can calculate and use our credits. So the rules as they exist now are actually skewed in the favor of the U.S. government. And you know, I think what they’re looking at is issues or things that they’ve created to just maybe address the overall image of this and hopefully sell it. But frankly, we’re trying to fight this very strongly.

30:11 MS. VAN RYAN: Steve, I wonder if you could address this whole perception that seems to be pervasive out there among certain groups of Americans that insist that the industry receives subsidies.

30:25 MR. COMSTOCK: There’s been a lot of statements out there that the oil and gas industry is the most heavily subsidized industry around. You know, all that you have to do is look at our effective tax rate and realize that that’s not true. On the whole, our industry’s effective tax rate, at least for 2009, was around 48 percent, whereas the rest of the S&P was around 28 percent. A lot of that is due to taxes that we pay on our overseas operations, but we also pay a significant amount of taxes here in the United States on our U.S. operations.

You know, the subsidies that people bring up with respect to section 199 as being the oil and gas subsidy – well, any U.S. manufacturer gets section 199 or is eligible for the domestic manufacturing deduction. So it’s not anything specific to oil and gas; it’s available to any manufacturing entity out there.

LIFO is another thing that people have brought up. You know, anybody who has inventory and has to account for it, both on their books and tax rolls can – (inaudible) – LIFO accounting.

IDC even, if you sit and you think about a number of companies that perform research that they can expense on their tax returns and it’s used to generate an asset that’s going to have a value going out into the future? Well, IDC is the exact same thing for us. We have these labor costs that are associated with drilling. Same – essentially you need to be able to drill the well in order to make sure that there’s something there to be produced. There’s no real difference between that and R&D deduction.

So when people talk about subsidies, they portray it in a light that somehow the oil and gas industry is the only one and it’s overly subsidized. But in reality, they’re no different than deductions that everybody else is eligible for and you can certainly go through the [tax] code and pull out any industry and essentially put it in the same light.

32:37 MS. TVERBERG: This is Gail. I was wondering, has anybody put together kind of a table that would say, you know, okay, the oil and gas industry had revenues of, you know, in the year 2008 had revenues of X and they paid taxes of Y? And then the financial banks and things had revenues of X and they paid taxes of something else. And the electricity utility industry had revenue of X and they paid taxes of Y. And then add them all up and so you get the total corporate revenue for U.S. businesses or something like that. And do it for 2008, 2009, whatever years so as to have some kind of a comparison that one can look at that way.

33:32 MR. COMSTOCK: Well, the only comparison that we’ve done is the oil and gas industry versus sort of the all manufacturing or S&P companies. We haven’t specifically identified other industries as a comparable.

33:48 MS. VAN RYAN: Pretty interesting thought, though, Gail. One of the charts that we have shows the earnings by industry. And you can find that in the primer that is updated frequently at energytomorrow.org. It’s called “Energizing Life.” And I think if you take a look at that, one of the pages has a graph on it that would show you the first quarter earnings of the oil industry as compared to a number of other industries.

Basically oil and gas made about seven cents on the dollar – kind of the middle of the pack in terms of earnings. And a lot of other industries made significantly higher earnings than that. That chart might be helpful. But I don’t think we have one that shows both earnings and then taxes paid.

34:36 MR. COMSTOCK: Not by industry. No, we don’t.

34:37 MERV BENSON: This is Merv Benson. Does that 48 percent include the tax at the pump?

34:44 MR. COMSTOCK: No. That’s the actual – you mean, the motor fuels excise tax?

34:37 MR. BENSON: Right.

34:38 MR. COMSTOCK: No, that does not include that. That is just income taxes.

34:55 MR. BENSON: Okay, so that’s on top of the income tax.

34:58 MR. COMSTOCK: Correct. The way the – you know, in addition to all the other taxes that we pay on our income or even severance, there’s the $30-some-odd billion that we collect and remit to the state that’s on the – from the motor fuels excise tax.

35:16 MR. BENSON: So I guess the government is actually making more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies are? (Laughter.)

35:25 MR. COMSTOCK: Well, they take out a substantial chunk and from the primer, earnings primer that Jane just alluded to, there is, I think, a dollar graphic which shows how much is allocated to raw material, how much is essentially margin for refining and then how much of, sort of, the dollar from a sale of a gallon of gasoline goes to excise taxes both at the state and federal level. So they certainly make a substantial amount.

36:01 MR. BENSON: And they don’t have any risk of production or finding oil and gas?

36:02 MR. COMSTOCK: They don’t need a return on their investment. There’s no ROI – (laughter) – issue with them.

36:18 MS. VAN RYAN: Other questions regarding taxes or any other issue for that matter? Don’t be bashful.

36:23 PEJMAN YOUSEFZADEH: A non-tax question. This is Pejman Yousefzadeh from The New Ledger. In addition to the federal government’s reaction to the Deepwater Horizon event, there have also been reactions on the part of the state governments, including Florida, which is, of course, colored in large part by the Senate race that’s going on there and the fact that the governor is involved in the Senate race. Has API taken any particular reaction to efforts in Florida to, I believe, ban offshore drilling via constitutional amendment? I think that’s what they’re trying to do.

37:02 MR. RANGER: This is Richard Ranger, Pejman. We have not specifically. We have been tracking carefully the activities in the different states and have been working and following developments in Florida closely for really a few years prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident.

And prior to the Deepwater Horizon incident, public opinion in Florida was moving toward acceptance of or support for drilling in areas in waters closer to Florida. It depended how you phrased the question and it depended, you know, what the responder was saying in terms of distance from shore.

But Florida public opinion had been moving out of recognition of the importance of energy to the economy of a state that depends so heavily on tourism and so heavily on fuels to get the tourists to the state and on energy to supply the air conditioning and the utilities to keep them comfortable once they’re there when they’re not out by the pool or on the beach.

That’s obviously changed in significant ways in Florida since the Deepwater Horizon incident. And I think you’re right: The existence of a very competitive Senate race down there and I think just normally vigorous politics in the Sunshine State has provoked a lot of concern among Floridians for the potential risk to their beaches and to the value of their tourist economy because of the Deepwater Horizon incident and the risk of pollution.

Over the long term, you know, assuming that we’re close to a final plug and stoppage of flow from the Deepwater Horizon well, with Florida as with the rest of the United States, our energy picture doesn’t change. We continue to demand energy to support the economy we have and the way of life we have. To take Florida as a specific example, Florida’s economy, Florida’s dependence on energy doesn’t change. And the importance of assurance of energy supplies, affordable energy supplies to Floridians, to Florida businesses, to Florida homeowners doesn’t change.

We have obviously got a long hill to climb to reestablish our industry’s credibility with many residents in the Gulf and, significantly, Floridians. But it’s worth noting that in the Gulf of Mexico, there has been strong objection from the other Gulf states to the moratorium – this is within the States and indeed among people who are closest to the Gulf living in the counties or parishes that are along the coast.

And so we simply see that we have a strong information-providing task ahead of us, but the primary arguments don’t change. We have an economy that depends on energy. We have – (inaudible, background noise) – Gulf Coast, a Gulf of Mexico resource that strongly supports jobs, strongly supports spending, generates taxes and revenues for the states in the Gulf. We think the work can be done safely. We will plan to make our voice heard both nationally and in the region to support safe and responsible development of the Gulf Coast resources.

41:00 MS. VAN RYAN: Questions?

41:02 MR. WESTENHAUS: Hi, this is Brian Westenhaus. Has anyone else seen the hydrocarbon man ad that Occidental put out a day or so ago?

41:11 MS. VAN RYAN: I know that Gail has and Gail in fact posted it.

41:13 MS. TVERBERG: I’ve got it up on The Oil Drum. (Chuckles.)

41:16 MR. WESTENHAUS: Oh, do you? (Chuckles.) I got it in an e-mail last night.

41:18 MS. TVERBERG: Well, I got it like a week or so ago from somebody and we put it up. It may have been out for a while. I don’t know. But anyhow, I put it up last night on The Oil Drum.

41:31 MR. WESTENHAUS: The point I wanted to make was that in lieu of, you know – in view of taxes and the river of money that flows to the federal and the states from the oil industry, you would think they would be smart enough not to try and throw dams into the river. Are there any other plans that the API or any other companies to come up with something a little more educational, such as the hydrocarbon man that might help people understand the gravity of the damage that’s done by government policy?

41:56 MS. VAN RYAN: To be fair, Brian, I’m not sure anybody here in the room has seen that yet. Gail mentioned it to me in an e-mail, I think it was just this morning or perhaps very late last night. And I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet. But we’ll take a look at it and see.

42:09 MR. WESTENHAUS: It will knock your socks off. It’s a good piece. (Laughter.)

42:12 MS. VAN RYAN: Okay.

42:13 MS. TVERBERG: The fellow ends up in his underwear after they take away the things that come from oil.

42:20 MR. WESTENHAUS: It’s really quite clever.

42:23 MS. VAN RYAN: Well, speaking of that and of the kinds of things that you all are seeing, let me ask you a question: So what do you need from us based on everything that’s going on right now, what kind of information do you need from API that helps you with your blog posts or helps you just understand the industry better? I’d love to get some feedback from you.

42:25 MR. WESTENHAUS: Thirty- and 60-minute videos like the hydrocarbon man that have educational value that the average dope can get in a little bigger than a spin or a sound bite kind of size. You know, a thousand-word blog post does one thing, but you never reach that many people.

43:00 MR. YOUSEFZADEH: In addition to that, just sort of a long view concerning the history of offshore drilling. I mean, all of us have internalized things like one airplane accident doesn’t mean that you stop flying on airplanes or even one car accident means you stop driving in cars. But this issue has not been internalized. And the Deepwater Horizon event is being seen as the norm, as opposed to a deviation from the norm. So that perception needs to be changed radically on the ground level before any sort of palliative political changes end up taking place

43:49 MR. RANGER: This is Richard. If I can kind of follow on your question, Jane. And I appreciate that response. One of the things that I think we’d always struggle with – and I don’t know if we were alone in industry – is the challenge of presenting information about what is a highly technical industry, an industry that depends upon science, on geology, on engineering. You know, a lot of what we do is not exactly work or processes or equipment that can quickly be explained to second graders at a show-and-tell. And so that’s – we’ve wrestled with that, recognizing that we have a need, as I think you’ve described, to tell our story to the public.

One of the things I’d be interested in feedback from you all is whether, you know, a number of weeks of the Deepwater Horizon of stories of various kinds in print and broadcast media about offshore operations has kind of brought public awareness and even a level of public knowledge up to where we could probably talk a bit more techie than we have in the past because people have a better understanding of there’s such a thing as drilling mud, there’s such a thing as a blowout preventer.

If we would have used those terms back, say, in December, we might have had a few sets of eyes glaze over. But I think we’re probably at the point where we could afford to speak in a bit more concrete terms about what we do to help present information that we need to present to the public. What do you all think?

45:45 MR. MALEY: This is Steve from Redstate. I work for a Gulf of Mexico operator and one of the issues that I’ve tried to educate people about is the difference between our shallow water operations, which are essentially not incident-free, but if you look back over the 40 years up until March of 2010, an acceptable risk, I think most people would say from an environmental and human safety standpoint. Offshore environment was relatively pristine until the BP thing.

Our operation is orders of magnitude less risky than what BP was engaged in due to water depth, due to drilling depth, due to pressures, due to oil versus gas. There’s a multitude of things that make it much less risky. But the people that don’t know and don’t want to know anything about our business lump them all together and equate them as the same thing.

(Cross talk.)

46:55 MR. WESTENHAUS: Brian Westenhaus again. You asked what advice one could give headed your way? Well, everybody on this call is very intelligent. But out there in the real world, half of those people have IQs under 100 and they vote too.

(Laughter.)

Well, I know it’s funny. It seems funny, but they vote too. I mean, watch Obama and who goes to watch him talk? Look at the faces in the crowd. It’s scary, you know. You got to get it simple.

47:29 JOY MCCANN: This is Joy McCann and I actually agree with Brian very, very much. I think that there’s – I think that you really do need – I hate to say this, but you need bright colors, you need oversimplification. You need to use the least techie-sounding terms and I think it would be a terrible mistake to go too techie in stuff that’s actually gauged to the average person because the average person just isn’t that smart.

48:02 MR. YOUSEFZADEH: And the average person is geared at this point not to believe you. I mean, you’ve – part of the problem is you could have the most sellable message out there, but if no one’s listening, then what’s it worth? And part of what you have to do is to, I guess, sort of wave your hands and say, hey, over here, we have a story to tell. And that’s going to be a process entirely independent from actually refining that story and having the chance to tell it.

48:41 MS. MCCANN: Which is why I think a lot of the people in Louisiana have a lot to say. I mean, I think it’s really, really important that the shrimpers in Louisiana are very much in favor of getting, you know, their relatives who work on the rigs back to work. I think it’s really important.

49:00 MR. YOUSEFZADEH: Yeah, quite frankly, I mean, that’s one of the best things you can do is you could – when people talk about stopping offshore drilling, a great many of them, the image they have in mind is that already-rich oil executives don’t get a chance to line their pockets any further.

I think it’s exceedingly important – and it has the virtue of being true – to point out that there are people who are never going to be millionaires whose livelihoods depend upon getting operations back into order. And these people are just getting killed. And that’s the most important thing you can do in terms of turning around public opinion.

And once public opinion’s turned around, in order to have the – in order to be geared to listen to your story, then you can start talking a little bit more about the technical side, about things that you’re doing in order to make sure that offshore drilling operations go safely.

50:02 MS. MCCANN: One more little thing that I think has to be concentrated on a little bit more is that a lot of the overseas operations are done at a much, much higher environmental cost. I think we really, really need to be talking more about what happens when the drilling occurs overseas – you know, what’s going in Nigeria, what’s going on elsewhere. What happens when the risks are higher and the impact to the environment is much, much worse, when this stuff leaves America’s shores?

50:38 MS. VAN RYAN: And you’d be able to use that kind of information, you think, or if we provided videos of people who have on their hard hats and their boots and they’re simply explaining what they do in the industry and putting a human face on the industry, is that the kind of thing you could use?

50:56 MR. YOUSEFZADEH: Yes, absolutely. I mean, this is an election year and economic issues are prime, especially unemployment. And this all just feeds in and it feeds in very, very strongly. And you absolutely need – this has to be an economic and employment issue. Because it is an economic and employment issue, it has to be presented that way.

51:30 MR. WESTENHAUS: Someone in the oil business has got to pull a Ross Perot about the giant sucking sound of Washington, D.C. They suck up jobs; they suck up cash; they suck up taxes. They suck up everything. You know, the little ad that Occidental runs is funny, but it’s highly instructive. It works for people that are highly intelligent every bit as well as it works for the people with an IQ under 100.

These things are hard to do, I grant you, but it’s important to get them done because the ad’s true. You take oil out of our economy and we’re sunk. You can’t support 300 million people without oil; it won’t work.

51:59 MS. TVERBERG: Yeah, that’s right. The problem with the ad is it’s in kind of an obscure format. And if it were in, you know, just a standard thing that people could pass around on the Internet a little more easily, I think it would be even better – you know, that they could share on Facebook.

52:18 MR. WESTENHAUS: It sounds almost evil for an association to do, but you almost need a library of stuff for people to call on, you know, specifics. You know, trying to have the stuff on YouTube; that’s Greek for me. I don’t have the time.

52:32 MR. RANGER: There’s something I could call your attention to because we are, you know, constantly updating our website. We have information, we have our ads accessible on our website, we just posted – what was it, yesterday – a new primer on hydraulic fracturing, which, of course, has continued to be a significant issue, particularly with respect to development of onshore natural gas resources.

We also have on the website – and I don’t know if Jane has sent you the link, but she can do so -- e have a couple of video productions on drilling, one of which involves real people employed – you know, wearing hard hats, working in the oil industry, explaining the basics of what goes on at a drilling operation from field locations in Texas and in Colorado. So we’ve got a couple of things like that. What you’re saying is very helpful and I really, really appreciate the feedback you’re providing.

53:41 MS. VAN RYAN: And speaking of hydraulic fracturing, I think all of you received links to a study on the Marcellus shale and the economic impact there. Because you’re talking about jobs and economic benefits and so on. You should have all received that study and Tim Considine, who’s the author of that study, should still be on the phone with us. Are you still there, Tim?

54:01 MR. CONSIDINE: I am.

54:02 MS. VAN RYAN: Good. I don’t know if any of you have any questions about his study. The study deals with the potential economic, very positive economic impact of the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia. And Tim, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it 280,000 jobs and about $6 billion in government revenues?


54:26 MR. CONSIDINE: Yeah, that was the forecast I made under a high-development scenario for the year 2020. Currently, the industry in West Virginia and Pennsylvania is creating over 57,000 jobs and that’s based on direct employment in the industry and all the supply-chain spending that it stimulates and the induced spending by households and landowners of lease and bonus payments and royalty income.

55:00 MR. WESTENHAUS: Have you got a map with a bright dollar bill, green spot over where that money ought to get spent?

55:07 MR. CONSIDINE: Pardon?

55:08 MR. WESTENHAUS: Need a map with a dollar bill, green spot on where that money’s going to be spent. Well, it’s got to be visual. I mean, you know, I like lots of traffic. I also like high-end traffic because they click on the ads pretty good. With these numbers, you’ve got to get down, you got to – you know, you’ve got to come down off your high horse and talk at their level. The second-grade thing works and I’m sorry it works. (Chuckles.) They hang around longer, too.

55:33 MS. VAN RYAN: Very helpful, this is all very helpful information.

55:38 MR. STYLES: This is Geoff Styles. You got time for a question on a different topic?

55:41 MS. VAN RYAN: Of course.

55:43 MR. STYLES: First, let me just offer an observation that might be helpful to this conversation, which is that, you know, it seems to me that what the industry is currently facing is an epidemic of fear, uncertainty and doubt, similar to what the nuclear industry faced after Three Mile Island. And that may be the only relevant analogy, to TMI. But it might be helpful to look at what other industries have done to counter those sorts of things.

I’m not sure the nuclear industry is necessarily the one to look at. But you know, other industries have gone through things like this and found ways to try and guide folks out of it. The question that I’ve got actually relates to ethanol, a totally different thing. I know that the industry has generally stayed relatively neutral on ethanol policy, but there’s a couple of big things coming up that could have a very significant on the industry, both in terms of investment cost and in terms of potential liability.

I’m referring to, first of all, you know, as we approach the blend wall, you’ve got this pending decision relative to increasing the blend percentage of ethanol from 10 percent up to 12 percent, or maybe even as much as 15 percent.

I have a hunch that, at the end of the day, if that happens, the folks that are going to be stuck with the liability when cars stop working are not going to be the ethanol producers who, I believe, have actually been indemnified under some of the recent legislation. But it’s going to be either the auto industry or the oil and gas industry or both.

And then the other issue relates to the very interesting proposal that’s just come out of Growth Energy which, I think for the first time, fragments the way that the ethanol industry is trying to go on its policy stuff. You’ve got the 45-cent-a-gallon, volumetric ethanol excise tax credit ending at the end of this year and there’s proposals to extend it, but Growth is saying, wait a minute, don’t extend that tax credit. Shift that money into tax incentives for putting in E85 infrastructure, gas stations and blender – they call it blender pumps.

I guess the idea is you have a tank of ethanol in the ground and you blend some arbitrary amount of ethanol into every gallon of gas at the consumer’s request, or whatever. Do you have any thoughts on all of this? Because I think, you know, this is about to start having a serious impact, not just as Hamburger Helper, but as something that’s going to really cause potential operational issues and costs.

58:05 MR. WESTENHAUS: Buy that man a steak.

MR. JONES: Hi there, this is Russell Jones. I’m more of a climate person than an ethanol person, but I’ve listened to some things around the building, so I’ll share what I do know. API is, in fact, very concerned about EPA prematurely approving higher-grades, beyond the 10 percent and higher percentages.

We’re in a fairly extensive research program to test these higher grades. I don’t have the details in front of me, so I couldn’t tell you who it’s with. But I think there is some legitimate concern as to whether the vehicles that are on the road can take the higher grades of ethanol, especially with the older vehicles.

And we’ve been urging EPA not to prematurely do this, to prematurely approve the higher grades, for precisely the reasons that you raise. There could be a whole lot of liability issues and we don’t want to be on the wrong end of that. And we don’t think EPA ought to approve products that are going to do harm to people’s vehicles. I think the research program, I think, is supposed to be done this fall, but I don’t have the details. But I think the liability issue is a very serious one and we are concerned about that.

Interesting thing on, you know, you’re talking about the magic blend pumps, where somebody walks in and says, I want 47.25 percent ethanol today. It seems there’s an interesting an old supply and distribution guy – I spent 10 years of my life doing supply and distribution work for Texaco – I cannot imagine how that’s going to fit into the marketplace, particularly at the same time you’re trying to introduce E85.

I mean, it just seems like a total no-can-do. And yet, if you don’t have something like that, you know, there’s no way to get to 35 billion gallons a year or anything close to that.

01:03:38 MR. JONES: Well, you can – I’m being facetious here – but each service station probably has about three different tanks, some sort of regular, mid-grade– and premium. And then you have three more for an E15, grade of each. And then, you could have three more to get your E85. I mean, you’re right, it doesn’t work.

01:03:54 MR. STYLES: Yeah, I’m not sure $100,000 a station would cover that.

01:03:57 MS. VAN RYAN: No, not even close.

01:04:00 MS. MCCANN: You make them more like Starbucks bars, you know, where you want the half-caf – (laughter).

01:04:07 JOHN FELMY: This is John Felmy. If I could just add something to this discussion, because I’ve been going over it. You know, the Growth Energy proposal just is a mystery to me. The notion of it is that, oh, the blenders and the oil companies are the ones who are really getting the subsidy and the ethanol producers are not at all. Well, the best research on this issue was done by Wally Tyner of Purdue who is a very respected agricultural economist and probably one of the most prominent agricultural economists in the world.

And they clearly in their study, which is about the only one that I think was carefully done on it, says that the ethanol industry is the one that ultimately receives the benefits, you know, following kind of the analysis of incidence of taxation and subsidies. So I really am puzzled why they’ve come forward that ultimately they could end up causing themselves problems.

And finally, you know, the limitation on selling more ethanol is not the oil industry. It’s not blenders’ pumps. It’s getting consumers to understand that they have a flexible-fuel vehicle. You know, the joke is that something like 8 million folks – and this was told to me by the ethanol folks – that there are 8 million cars or so and only a million of the owners know that they’re flexible fuel. And so, a strong outreach to those customers is the best way to be able to move up that chain. And you’re absolutely right. I mean, with low gasoline demand growth or no gasoline demand growth, you’re going to hit the blend wall pretty quickly.

01:05:35 MS. MCCANN: But there’s one other P.S. on ethanol that I think just – well, actually two, one which has been touched on, which is that ethanol is very, very, very highly subsidized. And of course, when there are fluctuations in the ethanol market, it actually affects the food market. And a lot of people think that that’s – that those two should be divorced simply because of the impact it has on food prices, depending on what’s going on with ethanol.

But the other thing to keep in mind is that in the average – in the mind of the average person, the environmental costs are very, very high with oil and gas but not with ethanol. And of course, you know, we know that there is a huge dead zone in the Gulf itself because of all of the – you know, agricultural runoff from all of the extra soybean and corn that’s just being grown for ethanol production.

01:06:29 MR. STYLES: Absolutely. In fact, the CBO just put out a study on the effective cost per gallon of gasoline equivalent of the ethanol subsidies. And they come up with a number for what it costs per gallon to actually replace a gallon of gasoline with ethanol, and it’s a stunning number, like $7.00 a gallon or something or $3.00 a gallon. It’s like off the chart. (Chuckles.)

01:06:56 MS. YOUSEFZADEH: This is Pejman Yousefzadeh. The great – one of the great scandals concerning ethanol as an alternative fuel is, of course, the fact that sugar cane-based ethanol from South American countries like Brazil would work significantly better than would corn-based ethanol in terms of both price and efficiency. And of course, we stick with corn-based ethanol because various Midwestern senators and various Midwestern former senators who go onto bigger and better things like to keep that kind of domestic supply, which is essentially protectionism run amok in the energy sector going.

01:07:40 MS. TVERBERG: I’d be interested in a link to that Congressional Budget Office study on ethanol. Was it Geoff that had that?

01:07:50 MR. STYLES: Yeah, Gail, it’s actually – I did a posting on the Growth Energy thing, I think, earlier this week. And the link is in the posting.

01:07:58 MS. TVERBERG: Thank you.

01:08:00 MS. VAN RYAN: Folks, we’ve been going for over an hour now. I don’t know if anyone has any other additional questions. I must tell you, I’ve enjoyed the discussion immensely. And I appreciate your candor in giving us your suggestions on what we should do and how to try to explain this complicated and highly technologically advanced industry to John Q. Public. It’s a challenge, as you know. It’s a challenge that we’re all engaged in every day. So any other thoughts that you have, please send them to me. And in the meantime, we’re going to get the audio file and the transcript prepared. And we’ll send those out to you, send a link to those two documents to you at some point tomorrow, I hope.

So if I don’t have a chance to visit with you before the weekend, have a wonderful weekend. I’m sure we’ll be in touch. Thanks, everybody.

(END)

A Dangerous World With an Incompetent American Leader

Over and over again.

Hey folks,

Over and over again, we see Obama, more concerned with the destruction of America, and the remaking of American into a Utopia, as he sees it, as the Obamanation with him as King. Meanwhile the world, that was suppose to be more in love with us, growing more and more dangerous.

Over and over again, we see Obama attacking our Allies, and attempting to befriend our Enemies. Over and over again, he seems to believe that if we just apologize for our greatness, and play nice, that those who wish us dead, will turn from their evil ways and embrace us.

Meanwhile, Iran continues it's quest to destroy anything non-Muslim. They continue to seek a Nuclear bomb with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, then us. Friday, December 07, 2007

OK, first, we had a man named Hitler. We saw him rise to power. He had appeasers, he had those talking nice to him. He even had people HELPING him. “He is no threat to us.” “There will be peace in our time.” He is just misunderstood.” He did have many defenders. What happened? SIX MILLION JEWS DIED. Countries taken over by military force. World War. Millions dead on all sides.

Well, it’s happening again. He has his appeasers. He has those talking nice to him. He has those helping him. “He is no threat to us.” “There will be peace in our time.” He is just misunderstood.” He DOES have many defenders. But this time around, he does not care about Six million Jews. He wants to wipe Israel off the map. This time he IS actively perusing nuclear weapons. “You can’t say that. Look at the NIE report." Oh, you mean the same group that put out the last one that said he was? Even just 4 months ago, they said he was. The same group that said Saddam had WMDs? Same group that filled this latest report with a bunch of we are guessing? What WILL happen THIS time around? What’s wrong with this country?

Now, we learn that the Obama Regime is now admitting that Iran IS actively engaged in a War against us. According to USA TODAY By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — For months, top U.S. military leaders have accused Iran of supplying weapons and training to Taliban fighters battling American and Afghan troops. What should be done about it is in debate.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander in Afghanistan, said shortly before he resigned last month that there is clear evidence that Iran is arming and training the Taliban.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in March that the Iranians were playing a "double game" inside Afghanistan by striving for good relations with Kabul while undermining the U.S. effort. Weeks later, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there was evidence that Iran was smuggling weapons into Afghanistan.

Just like the REALITY of them actually attempting to build a BOMB. Obama seems to be ignoring that. Now this. According to the BBC News - North Korea vows 'physical response' to US exercise

North Korea has promised a "physical response" to joint US-South Korean military exercises this weekend.

The comments came as Asian foreign ministers met in Vietnam for a regional security forum.

The forum has been dominated by the crisis resulting from North Korea's alleged sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

The US has accused Pyongyang of "provocative" behaviour and on Wednesday announced new sanctions.

North Korea's delegation spokesman at the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi said the military exercises - which begin on Sunday - were an example of 19th century "gunboat diplomacy".

"It is a new century and Asian countries are in need of peace and development, and DPRK [North Korea] is also moving to that end," said Ri Tong-il.

He said the exercises went beyond defensive training and would involve "sophisticated weapon equipment".

"It is a threat to the Korean peninsula and the region of Asia as a whole. And the DPRK's position is clear: there will be a physical response to the threat imposed by the United States militarily."

Couple all this with Russia's growing aggression. China's growing aggression. Israel and other Allies such as Poland and others, growing uneasiness about America and it's Leader's ability and desire to BE America, the Dangerous World in which we live, grows more dangerous by the day.

The truth is, it is ALL because we have a Leader that has shown over and over again, that he is either incompetent, or simply doesn't care. Iran building Nukes, North Korea threatening a physical response, Russia, China, Afghanistan. What does Obama do? Attempt to dictate to everyone that they need to spend more money to bail out America, and that they can no longer count on America as a Driving Force in the World's Economy. Brilliant.

So while the MMD discuss Race in America, following the LWL playbook to the letter, while we ignore the Socialistic Take over and the erosion of our Freedoms, and while the Obama Regime continues to push their agenda, the world in which we live, grows more and more Dangerous. Why? Well, one reason may be this simple. Obama has no clue how to deal with it. Just another reason we need adults to be elected in. Leaders not afraid to stand up for America. Not afraid to repeal this insanity, and ones that understand, the only way to make the World safer, is to allow America to BE America.
Peter

Sources:
Iran Focus - Experts discuss Iran-Taliban relationship
BBC News - North Korea vows 'physical response' to US exercise

Want To Eat Healthy, You Are Mentally Diseased

People wonder why I call It Psychobabble?

Hey folks,

OK. You KNOW how I feel about Psychology. I understand the need that some have, and the BENEFIT of talking out one's problems, with those that understand how to listen. I LOVE Doctor Laura, and have known a few Doctors that are GREAT.

However, just like the Pharmaceutical feel, there are Drugs that CAN help, and then there is abuse. Over Prescriptions for Profit, etc. Psychology is the same. Although some of it can help, a lot of it is complete Bunk. Ever notice how many new "Disorders," and or sicknesses pop up from year to year? Seriously. From EAD, Restless Leg Syndrome, to EVERYONE being "By Polar." If your kid is, well, being a kid, now you can drug them, and say they have ADHD or AD/HD or ADD. There is even a sickness called Eco-Anxiety. Remember that? Eco-Anxiety, the growing angst experienced by those who can't handle the thought that they — or anyone — are in some way contributing to global warming, species extinction and dwindling natural resources. The Cure? Hug a Tree. Not kidding.

Anyway, now, brought to you by the Psychobabble Community, you are now Mentally disturbed, if you have a desire to eat healthy. Again, NOT Kidding. According to Vegsource.com - Choosing Healthy Foods Now Called a Mental Disorder naturalnews.com Mike Adams 06/29/10

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke:

Told you. Not kidding.

If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

"Nervous about correct eating." {Laughing} Maybe they should go hug a Twinkie.

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

This sounds like something I would write. Who wrote this. Oh, here it is. Mike Adams. Way to go Mike.

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Vegans. Well, I always knew Vegans were nuts. JUST KIDDING. My Wife IS one. Well, then agai,,, Never mind. REALLY Just kidding. OK. Back to Mike.

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

Hug a Twinkie!. Told you so. {Smile}

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

"SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!" Love that movie.

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

Wait. Interesting point.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: Natural News - Disease Mongering Engine

Now believe what you want about the Mind Control angle. It is an interesting point. But what got my attention was the whole new "Disorder" thought up by people that stand to make money off of your supposed Metal Health issue. I love this piece. So just remember, if you suffer from Orthorexia Nervosa, or any of them,from EAD, Restless Leg Syndrome, to "By Polar," ADHD or AD/HD or ADD, or even Eco-Anxiety, it's not your fault. You are sick, and THEY can help you.

People wonder why I call It Psychobabble. Be right back.
Peter