Follow by Email

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Little Hitler Getting Closer

He's not going to stop, until he IS stopped.

Hey folks,

"Hey Peter, did you hear about this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8606973/Iran-carrying-out-secret-nuclear-missile-tests.html Iran 'carrying out secret nuclear missile tests' I know you have been talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since like forever. I know you are watching Iran and him closely. You keep warning everyone about this. Now seems that while Obama keeps trying to make friends Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to advance his agenda to wipe Israel off the map and kill the great satin as he calls us."

No I did not miss anything. Thanks for the heads up though. No, as you pointed out, I have watched Ahmadinejad, AKA Little Hitler, rise to power from the 80s as a terrorist, until now as Iranian President. I have warned EVERYONE that he will not stop. He is on a quest, he thinks is Holy, to wipe Israel off the map as HE said, and destroy US, as he said, the "Great Satin." He continues to work on this while Obama ignores it all. Actually, while Obama invites Iran to a Hot Dog BBQ at the White House, not joking, they REALLY did, Little Hitler continues to get ready for his big BOOM!

One of the Sources I visit often is Iran Focus. They had this story also.

Iran Focus / AFP - Iran secretly tested 'nuclear-capable missiles'

LONDON (AFP) — Iran has carried out secret tests of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in breach of UN resolutions, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday.

Hague's comments came a day after Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they had fired 14 missiles in an exercise, one of them a medium-range weapon capable of striking Israel or US targets in the Gulf.

In a statement to lawmakers, Hague said: "Iran has also been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches, including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in contravention of UN resolution 1929."

He said Iran had also announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium, adding: "These are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy.

"We will maintain and continue to increase pressure on Iran to negotiate an agreement on their nuclear programme," including sanctions, he said.

On Tuesday US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Iran was "bragging" about its assets, but did not specify whether Washington thought the tested missiles were nuclear-capable.

Iran's missile programme, which is under the control of the powerful Guards along with its space projects, has been a mounting source of concern in the West.

Western governments fear Tehran is seeking to develop a ballistic capability to enable it to launch atomic warheads under cover of its civil nuclear programme.

Tehran denies any such ambition.
Of course they deny this. Idiots. As I have told you before, no, as Little Hitler has told you MANY times, Sanctions will not work. He wants NOTHING from us. Not goods. Not Services. Not Land. NOTHING. He has all he needs. All he REALLY wants is our and Israel's DEATH. There is no negotiating with someone who's starting point is "You die."

But that's not all. Remember I warned you that no matter how hard Obama tried to make nicey nice, and make Friends, no matter how many times the World tells him to stop, he will not stop until he IS stopped, making a Nuclear Bomb.

Also according to Iran Focus / AFP - Iran's nuclear plant ready for August launch: Russia

MOSCOW (AFP) — Iran's first nuclear power plant is set to start up in early August, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday.

"The project has been completed and everything has been ironed out," the state RIA Novosti news agency quoted Ryabkov as saying.

"If this happens in the first days of August, it will fully meet our forecasts and expectations. And if it happens a few days later, there is nothing terrible about that."

Iran says it needs the plant, which had been under construction from the 1970s before being completed by Russia, to meet growing demand for electricity.

But the plant's construction has been strongly opposed by Israel amid fears that it forms a part of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons development programme.

The plant's connection to Iran's electricity grid had been initially scheduled for late 2010 but has since been repeatedly postponed due to technical faults.

Russian nuclear fuel rods had to be removed from Bushehr in February because of internal wear-and-tear that Russia blamed on the Iranian engineers' insistence on working with outdated parts.

The plant's construction had initially started in the 1970s with the help of Germany's Siemens company.
Now we have talked about Russia before.

Russia is continuing it's quest, or Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's quest that is, to bring Russia back to the good ol days of the USSR.

As I have been telling you, Russia is on the move. Putin wants to restore all the Russian Territories and will do pretty much anything to achieve it. The Georgia war was the latest move.
I told you how:

there is a new Cold War Brewing. The Putin is still very much in charge of Russia and he WANTS the USSR back. He WANTS the Cold War Back.

Since January 20, 2008 I have been warning you about the new Cold War. I have been pleading with you to make the right choice for the Next President of the United States. I said this back then.

WE need a person in the White House that sees this as a very REAL threat and someone that is not afraid to make the tough decisions when needed. Someone who could not care less about polls, and popular opinion and just do their job. Keep America safe. Think about it.

You, the majority of the American People, seem to think that Obama is the guy. OK. Fine. I HOPE Obama is paying attention.
I do not think he is. THAT'S a BIG problem. Now thanks to Russia, Iran will be Nuclear as soon as August THIS YEAR. Complete with the ability to DELIVER a Nuclear Weapon straight into the heart of Israel, and US Territories. He is THAT close to doing what he SAID he was going to do. Obama? Seems to be ignoring all this. But WAIT. There is MORE. According to Iran Focus / Reuters - Iran plans to send monkey into space

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran plans to send a live monkey into space next month, the latest advance in a missile and space program which has alarmed Israel and its western allies that fear the Islamic Republic is seeking nuclear weapons.

The official IRNA news agency on Monday quoted the head of Iran's Space Agency as saying five monkeys were undergoing tests before one is selected for the flight on board a Kavoshgar-5 rocket.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last August that Iran planned to send a man into space by 2017.

Western countries are concerned the long-range ballistic technology used to propel Iranian satellites into orbit could be used to launch atomic warheads. Tehran denies such suggestions and says its nuclear work is purely peaceful.

Last week, Iran launched its second domestically built satellite into orbit, the Rasad 1 (Observation), which it said was for transmitting images and weather forecasts.
So picture a Nuclear Iran capable of Space Travel and the Technology to launch SOMETHING into Space with the possibility to re-enter Earth's atmosphere ANYWHERE they choose, caring ANYTHING they chose. Yup. You got it.

Folks, again, Little Hitler, Iran, want NOTHING from us but our Death. They do not want money, food, gas, land, recognition, or to be friends. Well, they will be "Friends" until they have the ability and the opportunity to kill us. The TRUTH is, Ahmadinejad is on a quest to have a WORLD under Sharia Law. Become Muslim or DIE. It really IS just that simple. Our President is IGNORING all this. He is IGNORING China, Russia, Iran. He is IGNORING and thumbing his nose at our Allies, and SUPPORTING the takeover and anarchy by EXTREME Muslim Groups. He is SUPPORTING the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamofascists groups that are attempting to overthrow Governments and take over entire Countries.

I know, he is a busy guy. I understand that. He just told the Gays "Hey, looky looky all that I have done for you. Now, uh, Vote for me." But hey, even if he IS ignoring all this, and helping to make things worse, and the World is a FAR more dangerous place, At least he is spending his time here at home helping to make America Strong and Energy Indep,, well, at least our Housing is, I mean, at least our Job situat,, well, at least our Freedoms in,,at lease our Economy as a whole is Grea,,,uh, never mind. "Fore!"
Peter

Sources:
Iran Focus / AFP - Iran secretly tested 'nuclear-capable missiles'
Iran Focus / AFP - Iran's nuclear plant ready for August launch: Russia
Iran Focus / Reuters - Iran plans to send monkey into space

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Cars 2 Propaganda

They'll do just fine without me.

Hey folks,

Ever see "Cars?" Fun little kids movie. My boy Josh and I just watched it again last week when it popped on the Tele. I enjoyed the movie and so did Josh. While it was on, there was a preview for Cars 2. I didn't really pay it much attention, just another cute fun kids movie with talking Cars. "Daddy, Daddy. Can we go see that?" I do not know why not.

NOW I do. Here I am minding my,,,oh I know, It's Tuesday. What does any of this have to do with "From the Energy Front?" Just wait. So here I am minding my own business, checking out out Facebook, when I see this from a News and Radio guy friend of mine, Spencer Hughes :

"SHAME on the Hollywood LEFTISTS and their anti Big Oil agenda in CARS 2. They are like spoiled, whiney kids pouting and throwing a tantrum."
Wait. HUH? So I dropped him a line and said, hey, my kid really wants to see this. Was it really this bad. I think I asked was it worth it. He responded:

"TOTAL LIBERAL-ENVIROMENTAL FASCIST AEGENDA. Lasseter should be ashamed for making such crap this time around. I considered him a GENIUS in animation and filmmaking. Why would someone who is so blessed with unbridled creativity have to resort to Big Oil sabotaging green fuels as the plot of a kids movie?!?!" OK folks, now I LOVE Spencer. I really do. But this is a kids movie. I was thinking, ok, he must be off base a bit here. It a KIDS movie with talking Cars.

Then just yesterday, I hear Tom Sullivan on his Radio Show, talk about this very thing. He played an Interview with Cars 2 Director John Lasseter. And uh, YUP! Spence was right on the money. It was also done intentionally. So that there is no misunderstandings, here is an Interview as it appeared in the Wall Street Journal. I'm not sure if it's Ethan Smith giving the Interview or not, but here is the question and answer that got my attention.

Question: When you stepped in from executive producer to director what were some of the changes you made?

Lasseter: We revamped the whole story, the whole bad-guy arc. To me, there always needs to be a logic to our movies. No matter what subject matter it is, they have to be logical for the world we’re creating. I kept thinking about, “OK. A spy movie in the world where cars are alive. What would be a really good kind of über bad guy? Who is an über bad guy?” I kept going to big oil. This is before what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why isn’t alternative fuel more… Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol. There’s all this stuff you could be doing. And so I thought, well, that could be really cool in that you could have big oil versus alternative fuel. That’s when we kind of crafted the bad guy’s story.

The greatest bad guys, you understand where they’re coming from. They believe they’re doing the right thing. Sometimes it’s for greed, sometimes it’s for other reasons, but they are what they call the center of good. They always believe they’re doing the right thing.
Yup. All those Cars RUN on Oil, yet, Big Oil is the Enemy? That's like saying Oxygen is Enemy to Life. Right? When Lasseter said this, "Why isn’t alternative fuel more… Why isn’t everybody jumping on that bandwagon? It makes so much sense: Electricity, solar, whatever. There’s ethanol. There’s all this stuff you could be doing." That TOTALLY HIS opinion on the matter. But the REALITY is that there is NOT all this other stuff you could be doing. I bet you almost ANYTHING that the vehicle he used to go back and forth, the Jet he flies on to get around the country, the Electric he uses to heat, cool, power, his home, and those little Plastic CARS that he sells that he makes MORE money on, ALL RUN ON, COME FROM, and WOULD NOT BE HERE, if not for Oil.

I'm sorry folks, I will not be dropping another Penny on this Franchise. Not another toy, not the Movie, nothing. Oh if it comes on the Pay Channels like next year or whatever, I'll let Josh watch it if he wants to. But I'll explain the TRUTH and REALITY of the situation to him at the same time.

To try to indoctrinate kids, who will be Driving in a few years, you know, when Obama wants Cars to go 51 miles a gallon, they will be ready. Big Oil is the Enemy that is killing the Planet. Oxygen is the Enemy of Life. And you little ones, YOU will be charged with Saving the Earth. {Sigh}

Ruin a kids movie for Left Wing, INCORRECT, Liberal Propaganda. Truly sad. Even though I will not drop another Dime into the Cars Hat, I'm sure that they'll do just fine without me.

Sources:
The WallStreet Journal - In ‘Cars 2,’ John Lasseter Says Big Oil is the ‘Uber Bad Guy’

NOTE: The Picture is that of John Lasseter, Director of Cars 2

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Bachmann, Romney Tied In Iowa

Preview For Sunday 062611

Hey folks,

Welcome to the OPNTalk Big Sunday Edition. This is your Provocateur of Thought himself, Peter Carlock. Glad you stopped by. For those of you who may be new here, you can also Find me at Facebook, Twitter, occasionally at Tom Sullivan Radio Facebook Page, and if YOU want to be a Part of the OPNTalk Blog, or just say Hi, the Email is opntalk@gmail.com.

We ARE fully loaded today and ready to go. Coming right up?

They Use To Hide This
Obama's Oil Release
Top Ten Methods In Stress Relief
DLA for Sunday 062611
IWA For Sunday 062611


All this coming right up. But first I want to talk about this. Do not tell me a True Conservative can't win. All we hear in the MMD is that we need a Moderate Republican, Translation, a RINO, Liberal disguised as a Republican, to save the Republican Party and ONLY a Moderate Republican could beat Obama.

We talked about Huntsman. The fact that the Media LOVE him and he is HAND Picked by Obama Himself. We talked about how they are trying to McCain us again. But then, Romney comes out with his defense of, and stands up for, Global Warming. We know he likes Obamacare Light. Now he is all about Global Warming. The Media have decided, hey, he is now a serious Candidate.

All we hear all the time is that those Wascally Tea Party people are nothing more than dumb Hicks. They are Racists, Bigots, Homophobes, and Radicals. They do not represent the majority of Americans, and they can't win. Seems to me that they did pretty good in 2010. Even the Democrats that won were somewhat Conservative. Of course a few exceptions, but it was mostly a Political Blood Bath for the Left. They got Trounced.

But like good little lap dogs, the MMD are still trying to convince you that YOU are in the Minority. Palin is Stupid and Insane, even though she continuously makes them all look like fools. Anyone who even remotely tries to sound Conservative is Stupid and Insane. Look at someone like Michele Bachmann. Stupid Female. No experience. More than Obama, but never mind that. Can't Win. ETC.

Remember what I said? There is a REAL fear out there that they HAVE indeed done a good job in making Sarah Palin unelectable. I do not think so, but they do. So here comes another Beautiful, smart, serious, FEMALE, who is NOT Palin. Her name is Michele Bachmann. So those that may have wanted to Vote for Palin, may very well NOW go with Bachmann. Regardless of what the MMD and the Left tell you, they are terrified of this scenario. I can't imagine what they think of this. Look for the Attacks on Bachmann to INCREASE starting today. Trust me on this folks. According to DesMoinesRegister.com / 2012 Iowa Caucuses - Iowa Poll: Romney, Bachmann in lead; Cain third; others find little traction by Jennifer Jacobs 8:10 PM, Jun 25, 2011 Categories: Caucus Insider, Iowa Polls

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann sit atop the standings in the year’s first Des Moines Register Iowa Poll on the Republican presidential field.

Romney, the national front-runner and a familiar face in Iowa after his 2008 presidential run, attracts support from 23 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers. Bachmann, who will officially kick off her campaign in Iowa on Monday, nearly matches him, with 22 percent

“She’s up there as a real competitor and a real contender,” said Republican pollster Randy Gutermuth, who is unaffiliated with any of the presidential candidates. “This would indicate that she’s going to be a real player in Iowa.”.
So do not tell me that a TRUE Conservative can't get Elected. Want more proof?

Former Godfather’s CEO Herman Cain, who has never held public office but has found a following among tea party supporters, comes in third, with 10 percent.
Yup. The guy they are now making fun of the way he talks is in Third. Remember that Generic Poll? The latest Gallup poll has President Obama losing to a Generic Republican Challenger. Meaning NO NAME. Anyone but Obama? If this is possible, then make no mistake about it, someone who HAS a message, articulate enough to relay it, and is bold enough to stand on FIRM Values, THEY WILL WIN.

Do not let the Media, or the Obama Administration pick our Candidate again. Go with who you truly believe is the best person for the job. It AIN'T Obama. It AIN'T Huntsman. It AIN'T Romney. No more RINOs. NO MORE Politics as usual. We need REAL Change so we can have REAL Hope. We need a Conservative.

Going to fill my cup. Be right back.
Peter

Sources:
DesMoinesRegister.com / 2012 Iowa Caucuses - Iowa Poll: Romney, Bachmann in lead; Cain third; others find little traction

They Use To Hide This

They use to pretend to be non-bias.

Hey folks,























I'm talking about the State Run MMD. {Mainstream Media Drones} The Corporate Media. The Obama Media. The Lamestream Media. Whatever you want to call them. They use to pretend to be non-bias. They USE to pretend to report facts and the NEWS and let YOU decide. They USE to have an active Policy to be NEUTRAL. Remember I pointed out the ACTUAL Ethics Guidlines from the New York Times.

Taken directly from their "ethics" rules and regulations.

And second, no one may do anything that damages our news staffs' reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government; in particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other form of political partisanship while on the job.
And on "Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues"

89. Journalists do not take part in politics. While staff members are entitled to vote and to register in party primaries, they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of our news operations. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics.

90. Staff members may not themselves give money to any political candidate or election cause or raise money for one. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a staff member would risk feeding a false impression that we are taking sides.

91. No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. Active participation by one of our staff can sow a suspicion of favoritism in political coverage.

92. Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements or sign advertisements or petitions taking a position on public issues. They may not lend their names to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or their newsroom's ability to remain neutral in covering the news. Neighbors and other outsiders commonly see us as representatives of our institution.

93. Staff members may appear from time to time on local or national radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond the news and analysis that could properly appear under their regular bylines. Op-Ed columnists and editorial writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly, because their business is expressing opinions. They should nevertheless choose carefully the forums in which they appear and protect the impartiality of our journalism.

94. A staff member with doubts about a proposed political activity should consult a responsible manager. These guidelines protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Where the conflict with our impartiality seems minimal, top news executives may consider matters case by case, but they should be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception.
Then on Monday, November 13, 2006 I posted this. The MMD Have Given Up Hiding It Then I continued to post the Guru Series.

It is clear now that the MMD do not even try to hide it anymore. They are OWNED by, and merely an extension of the Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party. Now we even have Michelle Obama ADMITTING it. I'm not joking folks. According to this Video posted by Real Clear Politics - Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."
Basically, they will not report anything we tell them not to. They will not talk about anything we ask them not to. We have their support and they will report what they are told. I understand she is talking about her kids here. But remember that hoopla about the way Chris Christie answered the question about why he sends his kids to Private School? "It's none of your business." Well, why does Obama and Michelle send THEIR Kids to Private School and why did Obama kill vouchers in DC? Yup. None of our business. Right?

The Media has given up trying to hide it. There can only be two reasons for this. One, they actually believe that most of you are Liberal Kooks that appreciate what they do. Two, you are too stupid to know better. That you will simple believe anything you hear, read, or see in the MMD. Problem is, you are NOT a Liberal Kook. Most in this country ARE Conservative. Most lean Right. You are NOT Stupid. This is why Papers are nearly obsolete. There are no Liberal Rush Limbaughs. Viewership of Network and Cable News is plummeting. Yet, they are STILL reporting what they are told and NOT reporting what they are told NOT to. Thank God for the New Media. The Internet, Talk Radio, and Fox News. This is why it is so important to not allow these people to pick our Candidate for 2012. They are a tool of the Left, pure and simple. Thank you Michelle for telling the truth about this.
Peter

Sources:
Real Clear Politics - Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

Obama's Oil Release

Purely Political.

Hey folks,

I think it was Thursday that Obama Announced that he was going to Release 30 million Barrels of Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This provoked a myriad of response from EVERYONE. Most can't figure out WHY. Many feel this is a mistake. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is for emergencies. It is to guarantee that we, and our Military will have Precious Oil if needed during a major disruption.

BG said this.

"Hey Pete. Did you catch this? Obama is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the emergency reserve. Just with this announcement, oil prices fell. Do not tell me that if we used our own resources, it would not bring the price down. Remember Bush? Price down. Remember Obama, price up. But is this really a good thing? Really, what is 30 million going to do if we as a country use 20 million a day? Not to mention, is this notfor emergencies? The only energy emergency we face as a nation is Obama himself."

I agree with ya BG. If Obama was to release this all at once and give it all to us, it would last us a whopping day and a half. It will take away from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The prices are FALLING already. We are not facing any shortages. Obama will release 30 million Barrels. Saudi said they would increase production as much as 1 Million Barrels per day to make up for Libya. So even though OPEC said they would not increase Production, to help us out with rising prices, the Saudis said they would. So they go against OPEC and Obama says he will release this? The SPR release equals what the Saudis could do in one month.

So what happens? If OPEC gets really upset, they could CUT Production, in essence, keeping the prices where they are. But remember, we have to replace this Oil, and we will be doing so at a much higher rate.

The truth is, none of this makes sense. Our friends over at API pointed out a Blog Post from Mark Green over at Energy Tomorrow. Who posted this.

Trying to figure out the administration's decision to drain 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) - when there's no current U.S. supply crisis and while the administration is continuing to fight increased access to domestic oil supplies. Trying, but not succeeding.

Remember that the 727 million-barrel reserve was created after the 1973 oil embargo to protect the U.S. from dire supply disruptions. So, is there a crisis? Actually, government figures show the United States is well supplied, with stocks at above-average levels.

The Energy Information Administration says U.S. stocks of crude oil (excluding the SPR) have risen steadily since the first of the year, standing at nearly 364 million barrels as of June 17 (up from about 347 million in January). Gasoline stocks also are up (214.6 million barrels compared to 205.9 million in mid-May).
So no shortage. No reason for the release. Read the whole Blog Post HERE. But he also posted API's President Jack Gerard's comments, in an interview with CNBC.

"It's confusing as to why we would wait to this point to release part of the (SPR), but we've still failed to step forward and say let's bring long-term supply to the marketplace, create American jobs at a time when we have 9.1 percent unemployment and produce millions of dollars of federal revenue at time when we're struggling with a debt and deficit crisis. ... Just yesterday the administration sent a letter to Capitol Hill opposing a permitting bill that was designed to expedite permits in Alaska to produce oil and natural gas. We are getting a confused message."
They are not the only ones folks. Even some in the State Run MMD {Mass Media Drones} can't figure this out. But some are doing their best to report this in a positive light. According to CSN - Obama Tapping Emergency Oil Reserve to Make Up for Shortage From Libya Thursday, June 23, 2011 By STAFF, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wary of a new surge in gas prices, the Obama administration has decided to release 30 million barrels of oil from the country's emergency reserve as part of a broader international response to lost oil supplies caused by turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly Libya.

The release from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve will amount to half of a 60 million barrel international infusion of oil planned for the world market over the next month.

"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday.
But the Saudis already said that they would increase production to meet this demand. So? It goes on to say how great Obama is for doing this prior to the Forth of July. ETC. Read the rest of the Story HERE.

Folks, this is really pretty simple to understand. Obama is on the Campaign Trail. He is going across the Country this Summer to try to convince you that the Economy is good and getting better. {Sigh} Yeah I know. But he IS trying to convince you that what you are experiencing is not really happening. He wants you to believe that the Economy is coming roaring back. Kind of hard to do when people are coming up to him saying that they can not afford GAS to GO to Work. So he is looking for a quick drop. At the very lease, he can say "Hey, I'm trying. Look, I released 30 million Barrels." If he was serious, he would lift the Moratorium, stop the stalling, and get out of the way and let us Drill here, Drill now, and REALLY add to the Supply.

I do remember what happened when Bush announced we would drill more. Prices dropped like a rock. When Obama said No we won't No new Drilling. Prices DID skyrocket. When the Release was announced, Prices fell like a Rock AGAIN. I agree with BG. Imagine what would happen if we DID start getting serious about using our own resources.

No folks. This is PURELY Political. Screw the Saudis. Screw the Emergency Reserve. Screw long term Energy Prices. We need CHEAP Prices right now. Obama is TRYING to get re-elected.
Peter

Sources:
Energy Tomorrow Blog - Non-strategic Thinking
CSN - Obama Tapping Emergency Oil Reserve to Make Up for Shortage From Libya

Top Ten Methods In Stress Relief

In the Stressful Lives we live.

Hey folks,

In today's Health and Science Segment, I want to talk about Stress. We live in Stressful Times. The Economy is in the tank. Housing is in a Double Dip Recession. We have record High Unemployment. Record high debt. No credit. Skyrocketing and unstable Energy Costs. Nothing is working for most.

One of the things that happens in this Environment, people become overly concerned about their, if they are lucky enough to be working, Jobs. They are worried about losing their House. They are worried about their Children's future. Stress levels continue to rise.

So how can you beat Stress. Here are Top Ten Methods to relieve some of your Stress from our friends over at WEB MD.

Laugh Out Loud

Feeling stressed about work and family responsibilities? There are plenty of quick things you can do to reduce your tension. Throw a comedy into the DVD player, invite over some friends, and share a few good laughs. Every time you crack up, increased oxygen courses to your organs, blood flow increases, and stress evaporates. In fact, just thinking about having a good laugh is enough to lower your stress hormone levels.

Pet Your Dog

Your pet not only gives you unconditional love, but he's also good for your health. When you pet your dog even for just a few minutes, your body releases feel-good hormones like serotonin, prolactin, and oxytocin. At the same time, it decreases the amount of the damaging stress hormones that are released. That can mean lower blood pressure, less anxiety, and even a boost in immunity.

Clean the Clutter

Being surrounded by too much stuff can be overwhelming and contribute to stress. It brings on anxiety when you can't find your checkbook, your child's homework, or the utility bill. So de-clutter to de-stress. Tackle a drawer, a shelf, or a tabletop at a time. An uncluttered space can feel satisfying and restorative. As an added plus, spring cleaning is good exercise, burning more than 250 calories an hour.

Mow the Lawn

Cutting the lawn might sound like work, but the smell of freshly mown grass actually can make you feel more relaxed. Scientists say chemicals from newly cut grass help block the release of stress hormones in the brain. Just remember to wear earplugs to drown out the mower, because too much loud noise can send your stress rate soaring again.

Drink Some Orange Juice

The tart beverage that already may be a regular part of your morning routine could help you in surprising ways. Researchers say vitamin C may help people manage their stress more effectively, in part by lowering levels of stress hormones like cortisol. As an added bonus, vitamin C-rich foods such as orange juice, grapefruit juice, strawberries, or sweet red peppers can help boost your immune system.

Sing a Song

Turn up the radio in the car or start crooning in the shower. No matter how out of tune you are, singing can make you feel happier. Choral members who were surveyed said singing put them in a better mood and made them feel less stressed. Singing also can be good for your breathing and posture, as well as your heart and immune system.

Take a Walk

Exercise is a great way to ease stress. It helps your body produce endorphins -- the neurotransmitters in your brain that make you feel good. It also forces you to focus, helping you forget what’s making you anxious. Exercising in warm, sunny weather can boost your mood. And if you walk briskly for at least 30 minutes, you'll meet daily exercise recommendations, and ramp up stress-busting benefits even more.

Chew Some Gum

Chewing gum can do more than freshen your breath. According to research, chewing a stick of gum also seems to reduce stress and anxiety, as well as improve mental performance during tasks. In one study, not only did gum chewers report they were less stressed, they were also less depressed and less likely to see a doctor for high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

Have Sex

When you're stressed out, getting frisky might be the last thing on your mind. But having sex is actually a great way to relieve tension and ease stress. Sex lowers blood pressure, boosts self-esteem, and increases feelings of intimacy with your partner. It can also help you sleep better, which is a great benefit when you've spent sleepless nights stressing about problems.

Take a Deep Breath

Aromatherapy isn't just for spas. No matter where you are, taking a deep whiff of lavender or rosemary can put you into a more relaxed state. Inhaling those aromas can lower your levels of the stress hormone cortisol. But just the act of breathing deeply is also a stress buster. Deep breathing sends oxygen surging through your bloodstream, helping to calm your entire body.
Now some of these I was aware of. Some came as a surprise to me. Yet, it NOW makes sense why I LOVE to cut the Grass. I'm not kidding about that. I cut mine and Three of my Neighbor's Yards. They appreciate it. So the smell of freshly mown Grass actually can make you feel more relaxed by Chemicals released help block the release of Stress Hormones in the Brain? Good to know. I think I would prefer number 9. {Smile} I think I will skip number 3. I might like cutting Grass, but I HATE cleaning.

So there you have it folks. Drink a glass of OJ, cut the Grass while Chewing Gum, then have Sex. That Stress will be gone. Just take a shower first and, uh, may I recommend, no laughing during? {Smile}

Anyway, be good to yourselves out there. Be well and try not to worry too much. Things WILL get better. Just keep the faith and Vote for someone in 2012 that can and WILL help us undo the mess that this Administration has placed us ALL in.
Peter

Sources:
Web MD - 10 Fast Stress-Busting Pick-Me-Ups

DLA for Sunday 062611

One of those Rare Occasions

Hey folks,

This is one of those Rare Occasions that I am willing to award the Display of Logic Award, to someone that I disagree with 70 percent of the time. Someone I would NEVER Vote for. Someone I do not think is a good person that represents MY views and MY interests.

Now I have talk about him. I gave you the Myths and the FACTS about this guy. I told you he was not our guy. The Media loves him, Obama hand picked him to be his opponent. That alone tells you all you need to know.

The guy is a RINO. He is a Friend of Obama's. He is a former Employee of Obama's. He is FOR Obamacare, Global Warming, and he will NOT bring our Country in a different direction. So WHY am I awarding Jon Huntsman the Logic Award? It's like that old saying goes.


"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."
Winston Churchill
With THIS Statement, he wins. It is what I have been telling you for YEARS. Leading up to the 2008 Elections. The 2010 Elections. I have pointed out their own words and deeds. I have given you examples. I have been telling you that it is NO longer about Right vs Left. It is no longer Politics as usual. No longer is it simply, we win, they win, we win. America itself is at stake.


"For the first time in history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got," he said. "This, ladies and gentlemen, is totally unacceptable and it is totally un-American."
Congratulations Jon Huntsman. For speaking the TRUTH, and for being bold enough to speak it, you are the winner of the Display of Logic Award for today, Sunday, June 26, 2011. However, as I said before. Due to the rest of your positions and opinions, I can not Vote for you. What you said is DEAD ON. That is WHY we need to make sure that we are not McCained again. That is WHY we need a TRUE Conservative in the Running. This is WHY we need a TRUE Conservative as the next President of the United States. Sorry Mr. Huntsman, YOU are NOT it.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Problems With Huntsman
Real Clear Politics - Huntsman joins WH race, promising jobs, civility

IWA For Sunday 062611

Recalls await.

Hey folks,

Yes. I can see it now, the headlines:

"Tom Tom Recalls Hundreds of Thousands."

"Nuvi halts new sales."

"VZ Navigator set to be turned off until."

People often wonder why there are Stupid Warning Labels on things. "Do not Iron while WEARING Cloths." "Caution, HOT." On Lighters? "Flammable." Stupid Labels are for STUPID people. If I buy a Lighter, I sure hope it's Flammable. That's the whole point for buying it. If I buy a Coffee, unless I asked for an ICE Coffee, it better be hot. I Iron naked so I need not worry about that one. Hey, it told me to.

The problem is, someone DID try to Iron while wearing the Shirt or Pants. They got burned. Someone got burned with coffee. And someone must of had a bad day with a Lighter. SO? They sued. "I didn't know." so to make sure that they can limit the damages, because in a lot of these cases the Idiots WIN, Companies are forced to put Idiot Labels on their Products. Remember THIS? Nearly 2 million Summer Infant Video Baby Monitors were recalled after being linked to the strangulation deaths of two Infants. TWO Idiots put the Monitors on the Cribs, where the Child could reach the cord, the Child died. TWO out of 2 Million. But they had to put an Idiot Label on them.

So what is the defect with the Navigators? Nothing. According to Seattle PI - GPS unit sends driver down boat launch, into Bellevue slough


Three young women escaped a sinking SUV after a direction from a rental car GPS unit sent them down a boat launch and into the Mercer Slough in Bellevue early Wednesday.

The driver apparently thought she was on a road while following her GPS unit just after midnight, but she was actually heading down the Sweyolocken boat launch.

"We've seen sitcom parodies of something like this and to actually see it is surprising," said Lt. Eric Keenan with the Bellevue Fire Department.

The road was dark and the driver crashed the SUV into the water in Mercer Slough Nature Park.

"I don't know why they wouldn't question driving into a puddle that doesn't seem to end," Keenan said.
{Laughing}


He says one of the women immediately jumped to safety.

"We understand the other two women tried to stay with the SUV as long as they could by standing on these side door frames, but they finally had to wade to safety when the vehicle kept drifting out farther into the slough," Keenan said.

All three women made out safely, but the SUV is now completely under water.

Officials said the three were in town for a conference and trying to get to a hotel in Bellevue.

"They were trying to re-route their path and found this boat launch near the entrance to I-90 in South Bellevue and just kept driving into the water," Keenan said.

A tow truck driver was at the scene before 5 a.m., but couldn't even see the SUV. However, they were able to eventually find the vehicle and tow it out of the water later Wednesday morning.

Police don't suspect drugs or alcohol were involved -- just a case of a lost driver and a GPS system that didn't quite live up to standards.
OK. To be fair, I use a Navigator all the time. Many times I have been going too fast and missed a turn. The Navigator tells me "Make the next legal U Turn." Or Turn Left here." I'm STILL going to be paying attention to where I am. I will not turn somewhere I do not believe is correct, EVEN IF, the Navigator told me to. It's called commonsense. I love that line from the Fire Lt. Eric Keenan. "I don't know why they wouldn't question driving into a puddle that doesn't seem to end." You think? Oh yeah, that might be the problem.

But look at the way this article ends. "Police don't suspect drugs or alcohol were involved -- just a case of a lost driver and a GPS system that didn't quite live up to standards." So the GPS is to blame? Of course it is. Recall them ALL. Make sure that you put warnings on them. What? I do not know. "Make sure you are on a Road?" Uh, "if you see water, stop and check it out before driving through it?" But just wait. These people or the Rent-a-car Company, or BOTH, will Sue to recover the damage to the Vehicle, or "Mental Anguish," or something like that.

Congratulations Ladies, specifically the Driver, you ARE the Idiot of the Week. You know, I remember once my GPS told me I arrived at my destination when I was still driving. Good thing I did not assume I was there and stop in the middle of the road and get out. Navigators are GREAT. Very useful for someone like me. But you still have to use commonsense. You STILL have to pay attention. You sound like the type that would try to set Cruise Control and go lay down in the back seat thinking the car will drive itself. But hey, now you know.

Have a great rest of Weekend folks. See you soon.
Peter

Sources:
Seattle PI - GPS unit sends driver down boat launch, into Bellevue slough

Friday, June 24, 2011

Job Creation? Government? Get Out of The Way

The GOP Plan for Job Growth

Hey folks,

It's kind of funny. I was talking to a friend of my VIA Emails last night and I predicted that BG would send me a Comment or question about the Obama Announcement that he was releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I asked our good friend over at API about this and I am awaiting an answer. This is pointless and the timing is, well, puzzling. But I will talk more about this on Sunday BG.

But since it IS Friday, TIME to go to the Emails. Hi how are ya? How are you doing? Do you like your Job? Do you HAVE a Job? With Record High Unemployment continuing, and an Election coming up, this Administration continues to talk about Job Creation.

However, that is ALL they are doing. Talking. No plan. No idea. No apologies for the fact THEY are to blame for a lot of this. All they want to do is SPEND more. We do not have what we are spending NOW, and none of their out of control spending has worked. No "Shovel Ready Jobs." No Jobs PERIOD.

So SB said this.

"It seems to me to be an easy solution. Like Reagan said. 'Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem.' Business do not know what to do about Healthcare, what taxes are going up, the future costs due to a lack of an energy policy, so on. Over regulation and oppressive taxation will not create jobs. I like the gop plan. What do you think."

Hey SB. I agree. And I LOVE that. "Over Regulation and oppressive Taxation will not create Jobs." You are of course 100 percent right about that. I like the GOP Plan also. Here is a piece from Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio) who wrote in the National Review Online - ‘Recovery Summer,’ One Year Later June 17, 2011 4:00 A.M.


A Republican blueprint for job growth

One year ago today, the Obama administration launched its “Recovery Summer” publicity tour to bolster flagging support for the “stimulus.” Vice President Biden said, “The fact is, the recovery act is working.” But the fact is, it didn’t. “Recovery Summer” fizzled, much like the “stimulus” itself.

Republicans have a real blueprint for job creation — the “Plan for America’s Job Creators.” What makes our plan different is that it focuses on one thing: removing government barriers to private-sector job growth.

The “stimulus” was all about big spending and big government — not jobs. That was obvious on the day the “Recovery Summer” began in my home state of Ohio. Local construction workers on a nearby site in Columbus were forced to take the day off, without pay, so the White House entourage could roll through and tout all the taxpayer dollars they were spending. But all that spending got us was more debt and fewer jobs.

Approximately 1.5 million jobs have been lost since the “stimulus” was signed in 2009 — roughly 300,000 of them as administration officials hopped from town to town promoting the “summer of recovery.” The national unemployment rate was 9.1 percent in May — far above the 8 percent promised by the White House — and has averaged 9.5 percent throughout the Obama presidency.

The president can call this a “bump in the road,” or blame ATMs, or joke that those “shovel ready” jobs that were promised “weren’t as shovel ready as we expected.” But there’s nothing funny about policies that keep workers on the unemployment line and drive us deeper into debt. Those aren’t the kinds of results — and this isn’t the recovery — the American people deserve.

To be fair, there are some positive economic signs in Ohio today, in part because the Buckeye State now has a governor, John Kasich, who is working to remove the barriers that have held back our state economy. But we need that same kind of leadership in Washington.

That’s why, from the moment the American people entrusted us with the majority in the House of Representatives, Republicans have been focused on one thing: jobs.

Our new plan builds on our Pledge to America and the efforts we’ve undertaken all year to liberate our economy from the shackles of debt and big government.

First, our plan would rein in excessive regulatory burdens and red tape that make it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. According to the Small Business Administration, smaller firms spend as much as $10,585 per employee complying with federal regulations. Massive laws such as Obamacare have made things worse by driving up health-care costs and threatening jobs.

We’ve already repealed the devastating small-business paperwork mandates included in the health-care law, and we’re working to repeal and defund the whole thing. Another bill — the REINS Act — would require congressional approval for any federal regulation with a major economic impact.

Our plan would expand American energy production to help create jobs and lower gas prices. The House has already passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act to stop the EPA from imposing a “cap and trade” national energy tax that would destroy jobs and drive up prices. And we’ve approved several bills to expand production and end the administration’s de facto moratorium on offshore energy.

Our plan would pay down America’s debt over time by stopping Washington from spending money it doesn’t have and preventing tax hikes on families and small businesses. The House has passed a budget that would cut more than $6 trillion in government spending, spur private-sector job growth, and save Medicare for current and future retirees. Senate Democrats still haven’t passed a budget, and the president’s plan for Medicare is to let it go bankrupt.

Our plan would reform the tax code to make America more competitive, closing loopholes and lowering rates. And our plan would open new markets for American-made goods by passing the three job-creating trade agreements that are now before Congress — those with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Every day these agreements are delayed, Ohio farmers and manufacturers lose out to competitors in other countries. We need to act now.

The anniversary of President Obama’s “Recovery Summer” publicity stunt is a good reminder that families and small businesses in Ohio and across the country can’t afford more spending and more debt — they need more jobs. And Republicans are listening.

The Republican plan — reining in excessive regulations, expanding energy production, paying down our debt, fixing our tax code, and opening new markets for American-made goods — is a serious blueprint for private-sector job creation and long-term economic growth.

— Rep. John Boehner (R., Ohio) is Speaker of the House
Again, here is the Link: National Review Online - ‘Recovery Summer,’ One Year Later

Folks, this can be summed up in SIX Words. Get Government out of the way. Let America BE America again. Look at what he talks about here. Lifting a lot of the Government Oppressive Regulations and Red Tape. Repealing Obamacare. Lowering Taxes. Making the Tax Code more simple. Expanding Energy. All these things have one thing in common. Government is standing in the way. Get Government out of the way, and let the Private Sector WORK. Let the PEOPLE bring our Economy back. The PEOPLE that actually DRIVE the Economy.

So yes, in short. I LOVE the Plan. Let's hope they stick to it in 2012 when they win the Senate and the White House.

Have a GREAT Weekend folks, see you Sunday.
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.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

AP I / Blogger Conference Call, Keystone XL Pipeline

API/Blogger Conference Call

Hey folks,

Happy Thursday to you. A week ago Tuesday, I talked about the Keystone XL Pipeline. This past Thursday, API had one of their famous API/Blogger Conference Calls on this very subject. Here is the Trascript. Have a GREAT Day. See you soon.

Moderator:
Jane Van Ryan, API

Speakers:

Marty Durbin,Executive Vice President of Government Affairs,
API Cindy Schild, Refining Manager,
API John Kerekes, Director, Central Region,
API Janet Annesley, Vice President of Communications,
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Rayola Dougher, Senior Economic Advisor,
API Peter Lidiak, Pipeline Director,
API Sabrina Fang, Media Relations Representative,

API Thursday, June 16, 2011
Transcript by Federal News Service Washington, DC

Brian Westenhaus, New Energy and Fuel
Gail Tverberg, The Oil Drum, Our Finite World
Geoff Styles, Energy Outlook
Joy McCann, Right Network, Little Miss Attila
Lew Waters, Right in a Left World

00:13 MS. VAN RYAN: And we’ve got a few people on line now, so why don’t we go ahead and get started? And I’ll remind you all what the rules of engagement are here today. First of all, the topic, as you know, is oil sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline. If you have other questions, we’ll try to address those, as well. The blogger conference call today will be recorded, as they always have been in the past. And we’ll put up the audio file and the transcript online at the Energy Tomorrow Blog as quickly as we can. We believe it probably will be Monday before we can actually get them posted, and at that point I’ll send a link out to all of you so you’ll have an opportunity to take a look at those. I’ve got several people on the phone with us today that can answer questions about oil sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline. Let me give that information to you:


The first person that we’ll address some questions to will be Marty Durbin. Marty is API’s executive vice president for federal relations. We also have Cindy Schild, who is API’s refining issues manager. John Kerekes has called in, he is API’s Central District director, and we have a special guest, Anna – I’m sorry – Janet Annesley, who’s the VP for communications at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. So it’s always nice to have a representative from our friendly neighbor to the north, who’s on the ground and knows the oil sands probably better than any of us on the call because she sees it quite frequently. So Janet, thank you for joining us.

1:50 JANET ANNESLEY: My pleasure.

1:51 MS. VAN RYAN: Now, we’ve got quite a few bloggers on the call. I am expecting more. I think some will be joining us late because of Anthony Weiner’s announcement. So let’s go ahead and move forward. And Marty, the reason why I thought we should direct questions to you first is because this morning API put out a news release stating API’s support for a measure that was passedthrough a House subcommittee yesterday that would, in essence, force the administration tomake a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline by November 1st.

Can you perhaps describe API’s position on this?

2:35 MARTIN DURBIN: Hello, Jane, and again, thanks for – thanks, everybody, for joining us. And I’ll just make a brief – some brief comments, and then turn it over to Cindy for more of the detail here.

But as Jane said, you know, we’ve got that legislation moving through – moving through the House of Representatives that passed through a subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, that would essentially just mandate that, you know, a decision be made by November 1st on the Keystone XL pipeline approval. You know, we, of course, have been very strongly supportive of the pipeline for what we really see as a – just a win-win all the way around, from energy security to economic development and revenues for the government – you know, jobs immediately. You know, this is the largest shovel-ready project we have out there. And this is a – you know, a process that is now entering into its – into its third year – you know, taking much longer than we think it should have.

But again, I think we’re seeing growing support for the pipeline and for the further utilization of Canada’s oil sands both in the Congress and out in the states. I’m happy to say that we’ve seen a lot of governors and mayors and others join in support of the pipeline, as well as avery strong support from organized labor, both at the national level and again out in the local sand at the state council level, as well.

So, you know, we just think that as we look at the opportunities we have at a time of unemployment, high unemployment, and when we’re trying to help the economy recover and improve our energy picture, this is a clear win for everyone, including the administration. And we’re hopeful to work with them – continue working with them closely as they get to thatdecision point. So, Jane, why don’t I stop there? And you want to turn to Cindy?

4:30 MS. VAN RYAN: Sure. Cindy, do you have something you’d like to add?

4:35 CINDY SCHILD: Sure. Good afternoon. As Jane mentioned, today API is highlighting the enormous economic benefits of approving the Keystone XL pipeline. The $7 billion Keystone pipeline expansion will greatly increase the availability of crude oil from Canada’s oil sands to U.S. refineries, and will generate as many as 20,000 new U.S. jobs. Yet jobs from the pipeline represent just the tip of the iceberg of what Canadian oil sands development could do for U.S. economic growth and job creation. Almost 1,000 American companies from 47 states are already involved in the development of Canada’s oil sands. And according to the Canadian energy – (audio break) – U.S. jobs supported by oil sands development in Canada could grow from 21,000 jobs in 2010 to 465,000 in 2035. So for every two Canadian jobs supported by oil sands development, one job will be created here in the U.S.

And because Canada is already our largest trading partner, the economic benefits from oil sands development in both countries are significant. For every dollar the U.S. spends onCanadian products, including oil, Canadians return up to 90 cents through purchases of U.S. goods and services.

The Keystone XL pipeline will also significantly strengthen our energy security, because it will increase our capacity to import oil from a friendly, reliable neighbor and process it into usable products in U.S. refineries. We currently import more than 60 percent of our crude oil. About one-fourth of that comes from Canada, our largest foreign supplier. We are now importing more than 2.1 million barrels of oil a day from Canada. With a pipeline, our crude imports from Canada could soon approach 3 million barrels a day – twice of what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. Cambridge Energy Research Associates projects Canada could supply 5 million barrels of oil a day to the U.S. in 2035, or one in every four barrels Americans are expected to consume.

The Department of State has conducted an extraordinarily thorough environmental review of the Keystone XL project, involving multiple federal, state and local agencies, providing extended opportunity for public input throughout the process and including comprehensive analysis of alternate routes. And nothing in their supplemental draft environmental impact statement changes the bottom line. In the State Department’s own words, no new issues of substance emerged. So we continue to urge the department to finalize the EIS,to make its national interest determination and approve this critical project. Following nearly three years of review and assessment, it’s time to let this important project move forward.

Pipelines have a long history as a safe, reliable and well-regulated way to move crude oil and petroleum products. The Keystone XL pipeline will be built to the most advanced specifications, and will be monitored and maintained by state-of-the-art technologies.

It’s also important to recognize that the oil delivered by the pipeline to U.S. refineries isvery similar to crude from California, Venezuela, Mexico, crudes that are already processed here in some of the most advanced refineries in the world.

And as we say in our comments to the State Department, it’s time for this vital project to move forward. Oil will continue to be a critical part of the nation’s energy mix for the foreseeable future. We have the opportunity to enhance domestic energy security, cooperation with Canada – our largest trading partner, friendly neighbor to the north.

Canadian oil sands development will continue with or without approval of this pipeline; other nations will aggressively develop this key strategic resource for their future energy needs if we fail to act. The U.S. should approve this pipeline to utilize this resource to enhance our energy security, our national security, preserve our global competitiveness and maintain our role as a world economic leader.

We’ll now be happy to answer your questions.

9:10 MS. VAN RYAN: Thanks, Cindy. I appreciate that. And who’d like to begin?

Who has a question for any of our speakers today? While you’re thinking about your questions, by the way, let me mention that I neglected to say two things. First of all, Rayola Dougher is also in the room at API. She’ll be able to answer virtually any question you may have –(laughter) – about the oil and natural gas industry.

And furthermore, I’m also online at the same time that we’re on the phone, so if you have any questions that you want to submit by email, that’s fine; I’ll be monitoring my email account as well.

So, who’d like to go first?

9:49 GAIL TVERBERG: Hello, this is Gail. I was wondering, now, the proposal, you know, that’s covered by the legislation and such, would that extend the pipeline all the way down to the Gulf Coast, or just to Cushing? Because my impression is, really, what we need is a pipeline down to the Gulf Coast; dumping more oil into Cushing doesn’t help us nearly as much because the refineries there are pretty much full up. We need a way of getting the oil all the way down to the Gulf Coast where there’s plenty of capacity.

10:22 MS. SCHILD: Yeah, exactly, Gail. It is going – it would go down to the Gulf.

And you’re exactly right; that’s where it’s needed. That’s where the most refining capacity is in the U.S. And that’s where we have the most complex or advanced refineries that would be capable and have invested to be able to process this crude.

So you’re absolutely right. Maybe the little bit they use – the Cushing element is, there are two extensions to the pipeline. One would be to help alleviate some of the storage issues at Cushing, some of the terminals there. But it would still be bringing the crude to the Gulf Coast,the refining regions there.

In addition, the other arm would also create the ability to transport domestically produced crude oil and bring that via the pipeline down to the Gulf Coast.

This is Cindy.

11:29 MS. VAN RYAN: Do we have other questions?

11:34 MS. TVERBERG: So what exactly is the plan for November? I mean, that legislation – would that just get the president to act to consider the question in general, or you know, this is all come sort of piecemeal, that you kind of – then, you look at that piece, and then you decide whether – well, we’re just going to build another pipeline to Cushing, and we won’t decide on all of these different pieces, whether we’ll pick up the Bakken stuff from North Dakota or whatever else.

12:05 MR. DURBIN: Well, the purpose of the legislation is not – is really just to – oh, this is Marty Durbin – it’s just to accelerate the decision, to make sure that this decision by the administration is made before the end of the year. So it – you know, it will continue to require coordination among the various agencies. It’s just, you know, essentially saying, this has gone on long enough. We’ve had extensive review of the pipeline itself. It had, you know, meetings throughout every affected state and community where the pipeline is going – and trying to put a date certain on the endgame.

Again, in either case, we’re hopeful that the decision is going to be made, you know, before the end of this year to allow the project to move forward.

12:53 MS. TVERBERG: Thank you.

12:55 MS. VAN RYAN: Marty, this is Jane. It’s my understanding that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was expected to make a decision on the pipeline earlier this year, and then it was delayed. Is that correct?

13:06 MR. DURBIN: Well, you can – actually, there’s a lot of different steps in the process here. And in all honesty, we expected a decision last – about a year ago. And it was –you know, concerns were raised within the environmental community, within the administration.

So they extended the process. At the time, we thought it was going to be a 90-day extension.

Well, it just – it continued to be extended.

So again, we think that the Department of State has done extensive review. They’ve not only did, you know, a draft environmental impact statement, they went back and did a supplemental draft environmental impact statement – continued to say, we’ve seen nothing in there-review that changes the earlier conclusions that this project should move forward.

13:49 MS. VAN RYAN: Very good. Thank you. I think that helps put it in context.

Does that help, Gail?

13:53 MS. TVERBERG: Yeah, thank you.

13:55 MS. VAN RYAN: OK. Additional questions – about oil sands development, about the Keystone pipeline?

14: 04 LEW WATERS: Jane?

14:05 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes.

14:05 MR. WATERS: This is Lew Waters. I got a question.

14:05 MS. VAN RYAN: Uh-huh. (Affirmative.)

14:08 MR. WATERS: She said earlier that the pipeline would be monitored by the latest state-of-the-art methods. Could she touch on those a little bit? We have a lot of environmentalists out here that are going to fight this tooth and nail, I’m sure. And it’d be nice to know just what she means by “state-of-the-art methods.”

14:26 PETER LIDIAK: This is Peter Lidiak. I’m the pipeline director at API. And when we’re talking about state-of-the-art methods, we’re talking about supervisory control and data acquisition systems where they have thousands of points along the pipeline that can monitor conditions, measure pressure drops, et cetera. That’s tied into leak detection systems. And you know, it’s already – that’s already been seen that these systems can catch changes in pressure at avery quick basis. And that’ll be a feature of these new – the new pipeline.

And in addition to that, it’s all the other technologies that go into modern-day pipelines.And that includes corrosion protection systems that will be put in place, as well, as part of thenormal construction that happens with modern-day pipes.

15: 22 MS. SCHILD: Thanks, Peter.

15:23 MR. WATERS: Thank you.

15: 25 MS. SCHILD: And this is Cindy again. One of the things that was considered in the application, and TransCanada is going to comply with, is an additional 57 special conditions that go above and beyond the regulations that would be required by the Department of Transportation in this permit for this pipeline.

15:54 MS. VAN RYAN: Very helpful. Other questions?

15:58 MR. WESTENHAUS: Brian Westenhaus.16:01

MS. VAN RYAN: Go right ahead, Brian.

16:03 MR. WESTENHAUS: Well, I’m just curious. How serious are these objections,and how much time is expected to get through them all?

16:09 MS. SCHILD: (Chuckles.) Well, it’s already been quite the process. I mean, you know, our understanding is, to permit a pipeline in this situation average, you know, 18 to 24 months. We’re already, you know, butting up on 34 months. So certainly can’t make any projections, but that’s why, you know, this legislation is valuable to set some time frames. The State Department certainly wants to get something out by the end of the year, but you know, EPA has come up with additional – it’s just some concerns with the assessment, although they have improved their rating.

So I think at this point, it’s to be determined. We’re waiting – I guess the next several weeks, we will see, as the supplemental draft becomes final, how the Department of State and EPA and the mutual agencies are able to come up with the answer – what the final environmental impact statement looks like. And we certainly believe they have done an extremely thorough analysis from all aspects and all accounts. So that’s what we’re going to have to see. And we certainly, you know, do not believe that any more time is needed to delay this project further.

17:40 MR. WESTENHAUS: Well, are that – does that make them stalling tactics, or is there anything realistic in it that will actually, you know, put – really cast some doubt on it?

17:47 MS. SCHILD: The concerns that are raised are similar to those in the past. It’s the same in the past, whether it was as far as what the route is, environmental justice, greenhouse gas analysis. And again, based on our review, these have been addressed in the supplemental analysis.

It’ll be up to the State Department to, you know, determine that and work with EPA on how they’ve been addressed and the thoroughness as to how they’ve been addressed.

18:21 MR. WESTENHAUS: Do you expect a court fight after the State makes up their mind?

18:27 MR. DURBIN: This is Marty Durbin. I think that’s – now, just seeing the way things have played out here, I don’t want to predict, but I won’t be at all surprised if there’s alegal challenge to the final decision. Again, this is a process that has been used many times, legitimate concerns are raised during the process; they’re addressed. And we think EPA – or Department of State has gone above and beyond.

And in fact, just as Cindy was saying, once the environmental impact statement is made final, they’ve already announced they’re going to hold six more public hearings – you know, one in each of the five states where the pipeline is traversing, and then another here in Washington, D.C. So you know, our view certainly is that there has been ample opportunity for anyone with concerns to, you know, have those addressed. And that – So once you get past that, yeah, I mean, it does start to look like you’re dealing with stalling tactics.

19:28 MR. WESTENHAUS: So we’re still looking at years, and not months.

19:30 MR. DURBIN: No, we’re – no, we’re going to continue to be as hopeful as we can. And the Department of State is still indicating that they want to make a – they want to make a decision by the end of this year. And certainly, for the project’s sake, for the investments that have already been made, and the plans for getting it up and running, if they don’t have that approval, it’s going to – it’s going to put some serious kinks in the plans, you know, to get it upand running.

19:57 MR. WESTENHAUS: Are there any consumer interests being heard, or is it all industrial and environmentalists?

20: 03 MR. DURBIN: I’m sorry, any –

20:04 MS. SCHILD: Consumers.

20: 06 MR. WESTENHAUS: Is there a consumer view, or is it – does it get expressed, or is it all environmental objections?

20: 11 MR. DURBIN: Well, I don’t want to make it sound like there’s only objections being raised. You know, we’ve just had – you know, during the comment period for the supplemental, there were nearly 90,000 positive comments submitted to the – you know, to the Department of State. And as I noted before, when you got the – you know, many of the national and local labor unions, mayors, governors and others, you know, they certainly are representing the consumer view, among others, not just – this wasn’t just industry views, you know, that had– industry versus environmental considerations.

Throughout the process, we’ve seen other groups – we had a group of veterans andretired military leaders that, you know, supported the pipeline for the national security benefits that come from this.

So we – I mean, again, our view is that there have been very broad support, you know, for the project. And again, yes, there are critics, and they’re going to continue to raise concerns.

But we think, you know, the job has been done to analyze the project. Time to move forward.

21:18 MR. WESTENHAUS: That helps. Thanks.

21:22 MS. VAN RYAN: Additional questions.

21:26 MS. TVERBERG: This is Gail again. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about whether this, the products that are being sent – the bitumen – (audio break) – natural gas liquids or with whatever – a bunch of Canadian slag. Do they tend to separate out more than some of the other kinds of heavy oils? You know, I think that’s been one of the concerns raised by some, that there would be problems with the pipelines that way if you got separation.

21:59 MS. SCHILD: Gail, that’s a – this is Cindy – there’s certainly been some accusations to that regard. But what, you know, often gets misrepresented and should be considered is that anything that goes into a pipeline has to meet the same criteria across the board, so there’s not special circumstances or certain pipelines that are going to be built for certain types of crude oil. It’s going to be the same standard, the same stringent standards, between Canada, the U.S., to transport these crude oils.

So there’s nothing different about the crude, the nature of the crude that’s being transported. It’s not heated. It’s not more corrosive. Those kind of aspects are some of the things. The fact is, crude oil is crude oil, that’s being transported via pipeline.

And another myth is that this stuff is new. We’ve been processing oil-sands-derived crude for decades in the U.S. What we’re able and will be able to do is process more of it with this pipeline. It’ll create more supply flexibility for our refineries in the U.S.; but it’s not new.

23: 21 MS. VAN RYAN: Janet, would you like to weigh in on that, too, on the type of crude oil that’s being produced up there and its qualities?

23: 30 MS. ANNESLEY: Sure. As Cindy outlined, crude is crude. There’s specific pipeline standards that must be met to put crude into pipelines, and those are consistent regardless of the origin of the crude. We’ve been transporting bitumen and synthetic crude oil products basically in Canada for now over 50 years, and according to the Energy Resources Conservation Board, our primary regulator in the province of Alberta, there’s absolutely identical pipeline safety records for conventional crude and bitumen or synthetic crude oil pipelines. So it’s something that we know from experience can and will be done safely. And moreover, I think from the Canadian perspective, to – directed to the refinery flexibility question, you know, to bevery clear, our Alberta government here in the province of Alberta, as well as the Canadian federal government, support development of oil sands, within specific environmental guidelines.

So the decision to be taken by the U.S. is not whether the oil sands reserves will be developed; it’s a matter of whether or not the U.S. would like to have these crudes and for – to help meet their energy needs. And every barrel of oil sands crude that comes to the U.S. displaces a foreign barrel from another source. And particularly when it comes to the U.S. Gulf Coast, those other foreign sources are Venezuela and Mexico. Mexico, as you know, is in decline, and Venezuela has chosen to take its oil, which is very similar to Canadian crude oil, elsewhere. So, you know, Canadians are not suggesting that the U.S. should use more oil; we’re just suggesting that the U.S. should use more Canadian oil.

25:22 MS. VAN RYAN: Very good. Thank you. I think that helps a lot.

25:24 MR. STYLES: Jane, this is Geoff Styles.

25:26 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes, Geoff.

25:27 MR. STYLES: I’ve got – now I’ve got two questions. I had one question before.

MS. VAN RYAN: (Laughs.) Go for it.

25:30 MR. STYLES: If I can throw them both out there, the first question relates to the last piece of the conversation here. I guess this is the first time in more than 30 years around the industry that I’ve ever heard a refiner say that crude is crude. And I’d like to hear a little more about some of the investments that are being made in refineries in order to be able to run the oilsands crude, and particularly where those might be regionally, and how that relates to the pipeline.

And I guess the other question really goes more to the – what I think is a very interesting scenario that API has put out indicating that the vast majority of U.S. liquid fuel needs could be met by sources in North America within a relatively short amount of time, depending on access and transportation. And I’m interested, or sort of intrigued by the interaction between that and the shale gas revolution. I mean, to what extent is the explosion of shale gas production both in the U.S. and Canada actually changing the supply perspective for the oil sands? Is it making more oil sands projects economical and ultimately increasing the total amount of oil sands that can come to market?

26:47 MS. VAN RYAN: Who’d like to start? Cindy, do you want to talk about the changes being made at the refineries?

26:52 MS. SCHILD: Yeah, I can talk about the first one. And a good point, Geoff, in the– that crude is crude. And I guess maybe it’s a matter of semantics in the standpoint, yes, obviously there’s many different types of crude oils, natures, characteristics. And I think what we mean by that is crude oil is inherently crude oil. So, yes, there are a range of different characteristics, and obviously we know there’s lighter crude oils and heavier crude oils. But it – what we mean is if you have crude derived from oil sands, it still has to meet the same criteria other crude oils being transported via pipeline would meet to be processed; meaning some of the accusations in that, oh, it’s heated, or it’s being, you know, mixed with, you know, a – some sort of diluent that’s going to make it more corrosive – that these corrosive qualities are, you know, not true, because they have to meet the criteria, or the same standards, to be transported.

28:07 MR. STYLES: So what you’re saying is that to a pipeline, crude is crude.

28:08 MS. SCHILD: Yes, when it’s being transported. Exactly. Of course, there’s different natures of crude, yes. Yes. So, better qualification there.

As far as – to the point about a refinery, there are different investments being made in order to up – that would be to process the heavier grades of crude. Now while in the U.S., we’ve been processing heavier blends, we’ve been upgrading refineries for years to have some of the most complex refineries in the world. There may be a little bit more that needs to be done with –for some of these – for oil sands. So you may have the need for additional coking capacity, maybe some vacuum distillation. There may be the need to add some sulfur recovery units or hydrogen production, since the heavy oil processing demands more hydrogen use than a conventional – a light oil. You may have some more metallurgy upgrades if you’re processing some more of the bitumen on the site; hydroprocessing in order to produce the proper dieseldistillate product quality.

So it kind of depends, based on your product specifications, the size of your refinery, what you already have, what your conversion plans are, your feed stocks and the mix with the other crudes, in what exactly you would have to do. But that’s a little bit of the type of units or investments that you would need when considering, and what’s being done at refineries in order to be able to produce the clean fuels and meet the specifications that are required here in the U.S.

30:12 MR. STYLES: But could I just stop there and ask for a minor clarification? I definitely understand everything that you just described. And I’m just curious, I mean, to what extent are those investments factored into the overall economic impact of putting in this pipeline, particularly in terms of jobs, investment and things like that?

30:31 MS. SCHILD: You know, when – you know, in any estimates that we’re providing, they’re not being linked. They were when we were talking about it a little bit a few years ago, we’d be giving some estimates on the refinery jobs. I know there’s still a couple thousand contractors down at Port Arthur in Motiva, Motiva’s Port Arthur expansion. But the – you know, the fact is, I think, you know, as Janet just said, if they – if we don’t get the crude through the pipeline from Canada, you know, they’re – U.S. demand for oil is going to still be here for the foreseeable future. It’s going to be – so we’re going to get it from somewhere. So the Gulf is a prime area to be able to import from a foreign source, so if we don’t get it from Canada, we’re going to get – and it’s still going to probably be a heavier mix, because that’s how they’re configured. So the oil is going to go in, and we’re probably going to be refining a lot of it in the Gulf.

So, I mean, I think it’s just, you know, about what makes – what makes sense and what’s going to be best for – someone asked about consumers – what’s going to be best for consumers in this country. Do we want to, you know, be working with our number-one trading partner, where there’s a lot of reciprocity and benefits and the ability to help our economic recovery and manage it probably more environmentally sound in North America, or do we want to be looking elsewhere for our future oil needs?

32:10 MS. ANNESLEY: I’ll just add that, you know, the reciprocity – that involves the Boston Bruins winning the Stanley Cup. (Laughter.)

32:16 MS. SCHILD : Yeah, yeah, I guess they weren’t too happy up in Vancouver, huh?

32:20 MS. ANNESLEY Oh, you apparently made Vancouver very, very angry about things. (Laughs.)

32:25 MS. SCHILD : Yeah, you know, I think Canada’s nice image may have – took a little hit. (Laughter.)

32:35 MS. ANNESLEY : It’s too bad that about 30 people could really do all that, but, yeah, absolutely. (Laughter.)

But I thought I might just pick up and answer, I think, the second part of the discussion question around shale gas and how that interacts with the oil sands business. Natural gas is aprimary energy source for oil sands operations. The oil sands companies use natural gas togenerate heat and steam. That heat and steam needed to wash the oil off the sand. And we’ve made tremendous strides in actually reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by switching fromcoal-fired electricity to natural gas cogeneration processes in order to generate the heat and the power needed for our processes.

So for oil sands operators, the shale gas revolution has meant, actually, lower gas prices, which, in the context of their operating costs, has become a good thing. So while, I think, at amacro level, we take the view that, you know, we need the right fuel in the right place at the right time – and oil is a very fungible, transportable product – so when we look at the potential markets for oil sands vis-à-vis the markets for natural gas and whether or not they’ll lead majorfuel-switching in the economy, we see the areas where there will potentially be fuel-switching from in transportation fleets, for example, to natural gas.

But, as Cindy outlined, they’ll still be, in just about any scenario I’ve seen from the International Energy Agency or the DOE or some of our member companies or Cambridge Energy, there is still – the U.S. and Canada, for that matter, is still going to have a strong oil demand. So in a world where oil becomes more precious and more in demand because of thegrowth in India and China, the barrels that you see coming into North America today from Saudi Arabia, from Nigeria are likely to be in demand in those other markets.

So in that scenario, we see increased opportunity to have a North American domestic supply picture. And, you know, obviously, Canada’s oil sands are a part of that picture, but not in direct competition for natural gas. The world’s energy needs are growing and we’re going to need all sources of energy going forward, is the view.

35:02 MS.VAN RYAN: Thank you, Janet. May I ask who just joined us? I guess not. All right, let’s move forward. Geoff, did you have a follow-up question?

35:15 MR. STYLES: No, I think that really addressed everything that I was looking at. But, I guess just on the final piece there, does shale gas and the impact on prices actually translate into more oil sands?

35:30 MS. ANNESLEY: I would say it does not translate into more oil sands.

Producers who are investing in the oil sands business are – they’re looking at both the commodity prices and different strip prices in relation to oil and to gas on, you know, obviously, pricing for oil on the revenue side and for gas on the cost-input side.

So, you know, they’re looking at, obviously – when I – I used to be at one of the companies that started an oil sands project in 1999, when oil was at $11 a barrel. And I can’t remember what gas was at, but it was probably much higher in comparison to what it was today.

So there’s a variety of those factors. But none of them, I don’t think, would be short-term enough to actually impact what is ultimately a 30- to 50- year time horizon for investment decisions.

36:22 MR. STYLES: Yeah. I mean, maybe the other way to think about it is that the oil– that the shale gas is actually enabling oil sands not to compete so much for natural gas because, I mean, the common complaint that I see about the oil sands is that, in effect, in the views of environmentalists we’re turning a clean fuel – natural gas – into a dirty fuel. But if there’s plenty of natural gas, then you don’t have that competition.

36:55 MS. ANNESLEY: Yeah, and you’re right: There’s still the price – the price of natural gas is low. And I think the fact is, we used to really view natural gas as a more limited resource. But now, certainly with shale gas, it is a far more abundant resource. But I don’t think that argument from the environmental community has gone away. The bottom line is, at the end of the day, you’re trying to maximize your energy return.

So in our producers’ views, whether or not it’s natural gas, it’s used to generate electricity, they’re just simply looking for the most efficient way to do that. And also, in a world that contemplates – here in Alberta, we operate under carbon regulation of $15 a ton. It’s also ina world where that needs to be reflected.

They’re also looking for the most low-carbon source of electricity balanced against economics in order to deliver that.

37:41 MR. STYLES: Thank you.

37:43 MS. VAN RYAN: Very good. Additional questions? Questions perhaps about the oil sands development and production methods? Janet, we have two people on the phone call with us today who actually have been up to see oil sands. They’ve seen both the mining portionand the SAGD technology, which is quite impressive. Janet, is it fair to say that we’re going to see more SAGD as time goes on?

38:12 MS. ANNESLEY: Yes. In fact, I don’t recall the exact number, but CAPP [Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers] just issued in April – sorry, in May, our updated 2011 crude oil forecast. So if those on the call haven’t seen it, please visit the CAPP website at www.capp.ca. But, actually, just looking here, it is at – in 2015, we expect in situ production to actually be more than mining production for the first time. And that is quite a milestone for our industry as the largest projects today, and certainly the projects that started back in the ’60s, are allmining projects. So for us to cross that threshold in 2015, that actually sees in-itu production outpace mining production, it gives you the indication of where things are headed.

And, in fact, 80 percent of the potential oil sands resource cannot be developed using mining techniques. It must be developed using in-situ techniques. So that’s certainly where the future lies.

39:18 MS. VAN RYAN: For those of you who are – who are not familiar with the acronyms that we’re using, I apologize. There’s an awful lot of industry jargon that I guess we all have a tendency to fall back into, including myself. But Janet, maybe you can explain whatthe in-situ development is in a few words? What we’re talking about when we use the expression “SAGD,” which is S-A-G-D?

39:41 MS. ANNESLEY: Yeah, sure. In-situ is – yeah, it’s one of those engineering terms that’s Latin for “in place.” So it simply differentiates mining from drilling, essentially.

And the different technologies that fall under in-situ are drilling; the SAGD is one of them –steam-assisted gravity drainage. There’s also a number of other technologies that are used. There’s some that are being experimented with.

But at the bottom – the bottom line is that when you drill into the oil sands, the oil does not flow to the surface. So heat or steam or some type of enhanced oil recovery process is needed to actually get it to flow up. So there’s a number of different technologies that are used.

And I think we’re really excited about what other technologies are being experimented with right now.

ExxonMobil, Shell, Conoco – lots of large companies – are trying to find better ways to get the drillable bitumen out of the ground, and certainly do so with less environmental impact and less cost. So if there is an area where we should be watching in the future, given the size of the resource and the money being invested into research and development, certainly, in-situ is it.

40:56 MS. VAN RYAN: Very good.

40:57 SABRINA FANG: This is Sabrina here at API. I think we’d like to wrap up the call and we want to thank everybody for joining us. If you have any other questions about the Keystone XL pipeline, feel free to call the media relations line at 202-682-8114.

41:15 MS. VAN RYAN: Oh, sure. Or, if you prefer, just – I’ll be online; send your questions to me by e-mail and I’ll be happy to get them answered for you. And thank you all for joining us today. I’ll be happy, like I say, to answer any other questions you might have. We’ll be sending out the recording and the transcript probably late Monday, maybe early Tuesday. But you’ll get this information early next week. And thanks,everybody. Have a great weekend in the meantime. (Cross talk.) Bye now.

(END)