Projected Cost of $4.60 A Gallon

Are you ready for the Show?

Hey folks,

Have you seen the Projected Forecasts? It's coming. The Politics, the phony Outrage, the SHOW. Do you remember a few years back when gas hit $4.00 a gallon? We learned that this was pretty much the tipping point. EVERYTHING went up. Food, Merchandise, the cost to Power your Home. The Cost to HEAT and COOL your Home. EVERYTHING went up.

We learned during this time that THIS is pretty much the Price where people change their Lifestyles. Where people start traveling LESS. Buying LESS. Working harder at saving, just to pay their Home Bills.

Who was the hardest hit? Those on fixed Incomes. The Poor and the Elderly. Single Moms had to get second Jobs, just to pay for the Gas to go to their main Jobs. Pay more for Childcare. EVERYONE had to pay more for EVERYTHING.

Then came the Show. Liberals in Congress showed their Phony Outrage. They blamed "Big Oil" and said they were going to steel their Profits and give the money to you. They held Phony Hearings and attempting to get you all upset with those supplying the Energy.

Then something happened. An American President stood up and said enough is enough. We will open up new areas here in this Country. We will Drill more HERE. We will start using our own. So what happened? OVER NIGHT, literally, it's a fact, look it up, over night the price of a Barrel of Oil Plummeted. Fell like a rock. The Prices at the pumps started to fall precipitously.

Why? Because everyone knew, without a doubt, this American President was serious. We WERE going to do it. Then comes along another American President. This one says, NO. We will not Drill at all. The Rigs left. The Energy Companies took their Ball and went elsewhere. Then he says OK, you can continue but only if you jump through the hoops I tell you to. Putting into place a de-facto Moratorium. Then he started an outright ASSAULT on anything Energy. He SAID he will bankrupt the Coal Industry. He will NOT allow Drilling. He SAID he LIKES high Gas Prices. He just said NO to the Keystone Pipeline that would provide us with 92 Percent of all our Liquid Fuel Needs. What happened? You got it. The Prices starting on their way back up. They are going to KEEP going.

Why? Because just like the first President, people KNOW he is serious, and they know he will not reverse course no matter how much REAL Outrage is out there. They KNOW he doesn't care. So? Have you seen the Projections? $4.60 a gallon by May. THIS YEAR!

It's coming folks. Get ready. The Politics, the phony Outrage, the SHOW. Obama and the Liberals in Congress will be calling for investigations. They will be blaming "Big Oil." They will be telling you how "Big Oil" doesn't care about you. They will call for more "Regulations" and such. Oh it's coming. But remember who is REALLY to blame here. It's NOT the Energy Companies. It IS totally Obama and Crew. TOTALLY.

Who will be hardest hit? Will Obama? Nope. He's a Millionaire. Will Mikey Moore? Nope, he's a Millionaire. However, who knows, maybe he'll make another Movie calling Oil Companies evil and make even MORE money. Will Congress? Nope, Most in Congress are Millionaires. Will people like Rush? Nope. HE is a Millionaire. No folks, make no mistake about this either, those hardest hit over $4.60 a Gallon, will be those on Fixed Incomes. Those Living Paycheck to Paycheck. But it WILL effect ALL of us together.

And what are you going to do about it? NOTHING! What are you going to switch to? NOTHING. There is NOTHING to switch too. You are going to Pay it. You do not have a choice. It is, and has been, the Environmentalists that have brought us the Environment where this is possible. No new Refineries, Nuke Plants, for like 40 plus years. No new Drilling where we KNOW the Oil is. No Keystone Pipeline. No NOTHING. Just continue to rely on foreign Governments that hate us, to meet our very basic, and fundamental needs.

All I can say to you, get ready for the Show. Get ready for the Elections. Get ready to Vote for REAL Hope and REAL Change. Imagine another 4 years of all this? Imagine another 4 years with NO recourse? He will not be worried about being re-elected. Look around. Do you WANT another 4 years of THIS?
Peter

Follow Up On Kill The Damn Birds

It really is worse than I thought.

Hey folks,

Yesterday I posted This: More Unintended Consequences and Who Cares? Where I reminded you of what I posted July 14th, 2011 Obama: Kill The Damn Birds. What I was talking about was the Birds that are being killed daily by "giant horizontal blenders." And it seems as if no one cares. Obama and Crew WANT Wind Farms and WANT to further their "Green Agenda," so they do not care about the Birds getting killed. They do not even care about the Standard Environmental Study Process. Just lump everything into one. Approve it, and away they go. What about the Endangered Species? Well, they do not seem to care about that. They are willing to issue a Licence to Kill, in order to further their agenda.

I gave you this example of how I could see a conversation, based on the FACTS, would go with someone in the Obama Administration talking about all this. It went like this.

So why are we not Drilling?

"Oh, you can't do that. IF there is a Spill in area X, an estimated 10,000 life forms in the area will be DESTROYED. All Life as we know it in X could be wiped out for the next TEN YEARS!"

OK. So how many endangered Birds will be killed this year by Wind Farms? And if you build more along Migration Routes How many will be killed?

"Oh. UH. We really can't say. Uh, not enough data. Uh. we really do not have facts to back it up. So we will not speculate. We may not know for YEARS. So we should just do it."

One last question Mr. Wind Power Advocate. When these are not producing because of lack of Wind. How do these Turbines run?

"Well? Oil."

Oh. Uh. Glad we cleared that up. {Smile}

Well folks, it seems WORSE than I even thought. A Friend of mine sent me this Link yesterday. Get this. According to the Miami Herald - US officials conducting dead bird study in Gulf

The Associated Press

MOBILE, Ala. -- A new study being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aims to determine how many birds may have died during the Gulf oil spill last year.

The Press-Register in Mobile ( http://bit.ly/qD83rW) reports that in the "Carcass Drift Study" funded by BP PLC, researchers are attaching numbered floats to hundreds of bird carcasses and dropping them in the Gulf to track their paths. Federal officials have dropped about 250 real carcasses and 65 dummy carcasses in the water since July 16 along the Gulf between Louisiana and Panama City, Fla.

Researchers hope this study will determine how many dead birds never made it to shore. Researchers will combine this study with several others to estimate the total number of birds killed by the months-long spill.

OK. So because they have no real proof of any wide spread environmental Destruction that they hoped for, they are forcing BP to spend money on this Bogus Study. I guess they will claim, based on how many dead birds are EATEN, Sink, or whatever, that THIS must be a real number of Birds killed during the ACTUAL spill. Right? But that is idiotic. Just because a dead bird carcass that they drop in the water, doesn't float up, will NOT prove that there was a real Bird Killed during the Spill that just didn't happen to wash up. But they will have something that sounds good to those without the ability to think or apply reason.

"See. We dropped 250 dead Birds in the Ocean and only 5 washed up. So just imagine how many were really killed during the Spill." {Sigh} They may even say "It was worse than we thought." The sad thing though, is that there are some Sheeple out there that will ACTUALLY BELIEVE them. After all, it is Big Bad Oil we are talking about.

Scientists believe many dead birds are likely to be eaten by sharks or simply sink into the water.

"So we're looking at what is the probability the carcasses will come ashore? If they do come ashore, how long will they stay there? And then, what is the chance the surveyors will find them?" said PeteTuttle, who is heading up the Natural Resources Damage Assessment for U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The project is costing about $1 million.

Why? Seriously. Why? Of course some will sink, some will be eaten, and some will never be found. But WHY? Oh, to spend $1 Million of BP's Money. OK. As long as it is for a good cause.

Mike Pixley with the fish and wildlife service said the transmitters attached to the carcasses can be detected from about five miles away. So far, researcher don't know what's happened to most of the dead birds, he said.

The contraptions attached to the dead birds are small Styrofoam buoys painted orange and white with tiny transmitters on them. Each has a phone number printed on it in case someone finds it.

Hey call the number, maybe you will get a T-Shirt or something. This whole thing is Patently Absurd. I do have a few questions myself though.

What is the effect on the SHARK that may EAT one of these Dead Birds with a Styrofoam buoy on it. Will it make them sick? Kill them?

What is the effect on the land where these may wash up and rot?

Why did it cost a Million Dollars to drop Dead Birds in the Ocean.

And the Million Dollar question I have. WHERE DID THEY GET 250 DEAD BIRDS? Did they kill them? What kind of Birds are they? How is it no one cares about THAT?

WAIT? Hey maybe they are the Birds killed by the Wind Farms. At least they are putting them to good use? It really is worse than I thought.
Peter

Sources:
Miami Herald - US officials conducting dead bird study in Gulf

Obama: Kill The Damn Birds

"Can you imagine Big Oil saying this?"

Hey folks,

Happy Friday to ya. Time to check the Emails. For those of you who might be new here, Fridays are YOUR chance to become a part of the OPNTalk Blog. It really is simple. Just Email me at opntalk@gmail.com with something that you see, commented on, or just your opinion, and you never know, it might appear HERE. I get a lot of great stuff in the Emails. From time to time, I feel I could do the entire Blog, just from the GREAT stuff you folks send in. Today is a PERFECT example.

"Peter, you keep talking about the pipeline system to transport crude oil from Canada to Refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma,and the extension that will take it all the way to the Gulf Coast. I think it's called the Keystone Pipeline. You said that when completed it could help produce like 90 percent of our national oil needs. No more relying on countries that hate us.

That is a lot of ground to cover, and you know the environmental wackos out there are going to do anything they can to stop this. But image if you would, they told the wackos, forget you. We are going to kill the damn birds. You will like it and approve. this is for our country's own good. Can you imagine the headlines? Congress would want to investigate, etc.

Well look at this. "The permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would allow the projects to "take" an unspecified number of endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act, "take" is defined as killing or injuring an endangered species

The government can issue permits to kill or injure listed species with no penalties or risks of lawsuits to developers who agree to craft conservation plans." Not only are they saying we WILL kill endangered species, they want to rush the permit process through. Ignoring standard procedures. Can you imagine Big Oil saying this? Incomprehensible."

No not really. This is WHO they are. "WE, us Liberals, can doing whatever we want. We do not have to follow the rules that we create for you. We are smarter than you, therefore WE get the power, and control. WE are in charge and you will like it."

Now I left out a lot of personal information for obvious reasons. I can not even use the person's Initials for a VERY specific reason. Lets just call them "F" {Laughing} "F" is right here. "F" makes a GREAT point. What "F" is talking about was a Tweet by Green, uh, Green something or rather. But is a Reuters Piece. Here is the LINK: Reuters - Vast wind energy proposal could kill endangered birds By Laura Zuckerman SALMON, Idaho Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:13pm EDT

SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) - The Obama administration is evaluating a plan to allow a 200-mile corridor for wind energy development from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico that would allow for killing endangered whooping cranes.

The government's environmental review will consider a permit sought by 19 energy developers that would permit turbines and transmission lines on non-federal lands in nine states from Montana to the Texas coast, overlapping with the migratory route of the cranes.

The permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would allow the projects to "take" an unspecified number of endangered species. Under the Endangered Species Act, "take" is defined as killing or injuring an endangered species

The government can issue permits to kill or injure listed species with no penalties or risks of lawsuits to developers who agree to craft conservation plans.

According to federal officials, the large scale of the review will help streamline the permitting process by lumping many projects into a single study.

So they are not saying it may THREATEN Endangered Species. They are saying it WILL KILL THEM. They are just trying to figure out an "Acceptable number." Then forget all the different Studies and Permitting Processes. Just roll it all into one. The regular Process takes too much time and costs too much. You think any other Industry would get this kind of treatment?

The Obama Administration has been working to speed development of renewable energy projects by improving coordination among various state and federal agencies.

Environmentalists, however, say the "fast track" process results in inadequate environmental reviews.

The Administration's latest wind energy proposal raises concerns among wildlife advocates because the developments would overlap with habitat imperiled birds such as whooping cranes rely on, including the Central Flyway, a migratory path that cuts through North America's midsection between the Arctic and the Tropics.

The leading cause of death for the nation's last historic population of whooping cranes, which stand at 5 feet and have a wingspan of more than 7 feet, is overhead utility lines, the Fish and Wildlife Service said.

Conservationists say the Central Flyway's population of 280 cranes -- which make a refueling stop along Platte River in Nebraska along with tens of thousands of sandhill cranes and snow geese -- would suffer with the loss of just a single adult breeding bird.

'RAREST OF BIRDS'

"I can hardly imagine what the government is thinking. Whooping cranes are the rarest of all the cranes, the rarest of American birds," said Paul Johnsgard, author of several books on the cranes and professor emeritus of ornithology at the University of Nebraska.

Fish & Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said wind energy is crucial to the nation's future economic and environmental security, which is why the agency is paving the way for a renewable energy project with an undetermined number of wind turbines generating an unidentified amount of electricity along the 200-mile-wide corridor.

"We will do our part to facilitate development of wind energy resources, while ensuring that they are sited and designed in ways that minimize and avoid negative impacts to fish and wildlife," he said in a statement.

Whooping cranes, North America's tallest bird, once numbered in the tens of thousands before hunting and habitat loss caused their populations to plummet to 16 in the 1930s.

The cranes, which annually migrate thousands of miles from wintering grounds in coastal Texas to breeding and nesting areas in Alberta, Canada, were at the forefront of an emerging wildlife conservation movement in the 1960s that gave rise to a series of landmark laws aimed at preventing extinctions of rare and declining animals.

Whooping cranes were among the first creatures added to an early version of the Endangered Species Act in 1967.

Few other populations of whooping cranes exist in the United States, with an introduced flock in central Florida that does not migrate and a fledging group in Wisconsin that biologists have trained to fly to the winter refuge of Florida by following ultralight aircraft.

Attempts to establish crane populations elsewhere, including Idaho and Colorado, have failed.

Government scientists have not yet determined how many whooping cranes, other threatened and endangered birds and imperiled bats would be killed or otherwise harmed because of the wind project, said Amelia Orton-Palmer, conservation planner with the service.

"It's so early in the process we won't begin to speculate on what that might be," she said.

{Sigh} "Government scientists have not yet determined how many whooping cranes, other threatened and endangered birds and imperiled bats would be killed or otherwise harmed because of the wind project." OF COURSE NOT! But an Oil spill, they would have estimates out the wazoo, even if they were making them up completely. But since Obama wants this, GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS, which is an oxymoron to begin with, say "It's so early in the process we won't begin to speculate on what that might be," You SPECULATE all the time you Idiot. Global Warming is nothing more, well, a SCAM, but nothing more than Speculation of possibilities of a POSSIBLE Problem that no one can PROVE. {Sigh}

F in right, I mean, "F" is right here. Imagine if "Big Oil" sent out a Press Release and said "We are going to run this Pipeline, Drill, or whatever, and YES, we are going to kill some Endangered Species. We are also not going to go through this lengthy and costly Study and Permit Process. Just give us one all encompassing Permit to pretty much do whatever we want. Hey, it's for the good of the Country and all Mankind, so you will LIKE it." That is EXACTLY what Obama and Crew are doing here. EXACTLY. And they are coming out and TELLING you that is what they are going to do. In essence, Obama is saying, I want this. I do not care. Kill the Damn Birds. It is not really incomprehensible. It IS who they are.

Have a GREAT Weekend folks, see you SOON.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - Vast wind energy proposal could kill endangered birds

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.

Gas and Oil Cheaper, More Reliable, and Easier Than Green

The World is discovering.

Hey folks,

If you have visited here more than a couple of times, you understand my views on Liberalism. It can be summed up this simply. Liberalism: Quick to Dream, slow to THINK. Liberalism is FEEL Good. Forget Logic, Reason, or actual Thought. If it sounds good, feels good, and you could be considered a "good and Intelligent Person" for doing it, than JUST do it.

We've talked about this being how "Global Warming" has become a Religion. It possesses the same attributes as any Mainstream Religion. It has rewards, Punishments, Laws to follow, Salvation and Repentance, ETC. Like with most Religions, those that accept it as absolute Fact, neither question, nor accept, ANY possibility that it could be error. Any part of it. They will NEVER be convinced that it is NOT the Truth, and or, the FACTS do not back up what they are being told. They will just blindly follow it.

This is how those seeking to PROFIT from it, Power, Control, and of course, all that Money, STAY in business. This is HOW people like Al Gore, who understands Human Nature, has made Hundreds of Millions of Dollars. This is HOW Government can strip away the RIGHTS of it's Citizens, little at a time, and people stand and applaud. This is the whole reason "Global Warming" has become the largest SCAM in history.

This is also why so many, have bought into it, and are willing to lay down their lives, give away their Freedoms, and their Money. They are SAVING the PLANET. They will sacrifice themselves on the "Green Alter" for this worthy cause.

But here lies the problem. With any Scam, the truth is discovered. More and more people are waling up to realize that there is NO Man-Made Global Warming. Especially with headlines like THIS. UK Daily Mail - Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity.As I told you about, one of the things causing those Storms in the Midwest, the Temperature is DROPPING. We are in a Cooling Cycle. So they change the name to "Climate Change." Then no matter what, they can blame Man. So how does this all relate to Energy? The GREEN Movement? Well, Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, ETC. These are BAD. Dirty. These are contributing to our destruction. Besides, there is not enough of them anyway. We will run out then what? No, no, no. We must go Green. We must find a way to use what we have. Sun, Wind, ETC.

Sounds GREAT does it not? Using the Sun and Wind to power our lives. Abundant and always available, FREE, Energy. Those Big Oil Companies will no longer be making Hundreds of Billions while I struggle to pay my Gas Bill. We will be saving the Planet from Dirty Oil. As a matter of fact, lets bankrupt the Coal Industry, add a Dollar Tax to EVERY Gallon of Gas, and this will FORCE people to go Green.

And then you have the TRUTH. The REALITY of the Situation. It's NOT available. There is NOTHING to switch to. It is NOT Sunny 24-7, everywhere. The Wind does not Blow at 35 MPH, 24-7, EVERYWHERE. Not many have an extra $40,000 to $50,000 dollars to throw away on a Car that is NOT tested long term, and has SEVERE limitations. Oh, did I mention that Green is NOT Free? Reuters had an EXCELLENT article a couple of days ago that illustrates this point. According to Reuters - Analysis: Gas is killing green energy in price war By Gerard Wynn LONDON Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:57pm EDT

(Reuters) - A widening shale gas revolution is killing the economics of renewable energy, even as falling costs allow wind and solar to overtake fossil fuels in niche areas, say energy executives and analysts.

Solar panel prices are down about 10 percent this year, but chasing a moving target as discovery of cheap shale gas spreads beyond the United States, experts told Reuters energy and climate summit.

Even big renewables investors, such as French energy company Total, see solar as a tiny part of the picture decades out, compared with gas. Total paid $1.4 billion for a majority stake in U.S.-based SunPower Corp.

"You have one energy that represents today more than 20 percent of the energy mix, and solar today is close to zero and will represent maybe 1 or 1.5 percent in 20 years from now," said Jean-Jacques Mosconi, Total head of strategy.

Read that again. "Solar today is close to zero and will represent maybe 1 or 1.5 percent in 20 years from now," 1 to 1.5 in 20 years. Maybe. But we will run out of Oil and Natural Gas. There just isn't really that much out there. REALLY?

The trouble is that a new "golden age of gas," as the International Energy Agency dubbed it, has created massive over-capacity in a key rival fuel for power generation.

"The economic viability of a lot of the renewables are getting killed because we have too much gas in the world right now," said Jeff Currie, global head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs.

"It's made a lot of these other projects like solar and wind struggle in terms of their economic viability, and coal too."

Oops. But Green Energy is cheaper? Right?

Building new gas plants was half the price of new nuclear, and much cheaper than wind and solar, said John Rowe, chairman of U.S. power company Exelon Corp. Shale gas has especially suppressed prices in the United States.

Energy ripples from a Japan quake, where some countries are now rolling back nuclear plans after the Fukushima crisis, would favor coal and gas as much as renewables, said International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol.

"When Germany say they are going to use alternative energy sources, I just don't see it, if you try to switch now to solar power it will cost them 20 times more," said Peter Csoregh at Robeco's Natural Resource equities fund, expecting instead greater use in Germany of gas, coal and imported nuclear.

"Solar power it will cost them 20 times more." AND it's NOT Viable on a large scale, for EVERYONE. It just isn't. Remember I told you about FPL and the First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center? 11 Thousand Homes, out of a Population of around 18,537,969 at a cost of about $340 Million dollars. So that's about $30,900 a home. Maybe a good start, but only 11,000 homes in one County, in one State.

FALLING SOLAR

Offshore wind may be in the same cost range as gas by 2015, said Joergen Kildahl, a board member at Germany's E.ON group, one of the world's biggest utilities.

But that did not include the cost of building back-up for the intermittent power source. "You need to buy the flexibility to balance your production. That's a big question mark," he said.

In other words, when cloudy and when the Sun is not producing. What then?

After steep price falls solar power is now close to being economic without subsidies -- called grid parity -- but only in niche areas including parts of California and Italy, sunny places with high power prices and fewer alternatives.

Falls in solar panel prices may flatten by 2013-2014, said Steven Chan, president of Suntech America, the North American unit of Chinese panel maker Suntech, who cited studies suggesting widespread grid parity with retail power prices by 2015.

Trina Solar, China's largest solar panel maker by value, was shipping modules at $1.50-1.55 now, down nearly 10 percent from a year ago, and expected prices at $1.40-$1.45 by year-end.

Industry module prices had fallen by about 10 percent in the first half this year and would fall a further 4-5 percent in the summer, said Frank Asbeck, chief executive of SolarWorld, Germany's second-largest solar company by value.

"(That) is when some Chinese players will run into difficulties," he added, referring to further price falls.

Because NO ONE is Buying it. This is why our Government HAS to prop them up with YOUR tax money. But of course, none of this matters to the Greenies. No. Oil and Natural Gas are EVIL.

Analysts and renewable energy supporters often point to hidden costs in the case of fossil fuels and nuclear.

Fossil fuels, for example, produce carbon emissions whose damaging impact on the world's climate is not priced outside Europe. Rare accidents and waste disposal may not be fully costed in the case of nuclear power. Question marks have been raised over the impact of shale gas on water quality.

"It's essential that we provide a policy framework that provides a level playing field," said Rajendra Pachauri, the head of a U.N. panel of climate scientists.

{Sigh} Which means what folks? Yeah. Say it with me. Government regulations, fines, control, and policies in place to MAKE you go Green. Even IF there is nowhere to go. Too costly to go NOWHERE, and it being pointless to even take the trip.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - The Religion of Global Warming
OPNTalk - Alternative Energy Farce
UK Daily Mail - Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity
OPNTalk - SEVERE WEATHER: Global Cooling?
Reuters - Analysis: Gas is killing green energy in price war
OPNTalk - FPL and the First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center?

API / BLOGGER CONFERENCE CALL 042711

API / BLOGGER CONFERENCE CALL

MODERATOR:
Jane Van Ryan,

API SPEAKERS:
Robert Shapiro,
Chairman,Sonecon,LLC.
Kyle Isakower, Vice President of Regulatory and Economic Policy,

API WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011

The Bear, The Absurd Report
Geoff Styles, Energy Outlook
Jim Hoeft, Bearing Drift
Lew Waters, Right in a Left World
Mark Perry, Carpe Diem
Merv Benson, Prairie Pundit
Michael Swartz, Red Maryland

(Music intro.)

OPERATOR: You’re listening to Energy Conversations with API, brought to you by the people of America’s oil and natural-gas industry.

00:18 JANE VAN RYAN: (In progress) – Now unless people have questions, we’ll go ahead – and [if there are no] questions about the methodology for the conference call, then we’ll go ahead and get started.

Kyle, I know that you’re in the room; did you want to start by making some very brief remarks?

00:32 KYLE ISAKOWER: Sure Jane, thank you very much. And thanks to all who are on the line this afternoon. We want to very – I’ll very briefly discuss the study that we were talking about today, and I’ll let Robert Shapiro go into any – go into more detail. But essentially, what we wanted to do with this study is put a finer point on the importance that oil and natural-gas companies and their stocks are to – as an investment for many Americans.

Robert had previously done a study that showed, just a few years ago, that about 98.5 percent of the shares of oil and gas stocks are owned by others than corporate executives, and those in the forms of IRAs, 401(k)s, mutual fund investments, as well as pensions. In fact,pensions made up about 25 percent of oil and natural-gas stocks.

Well, what we wanted to do with this study, given the fact that pensions are such an important topic that’s being discussed right now in many states, we wanted greater clarity on the oil and natural-gas stock performance in regards to pension funds.

So what Rob did is, he and Nam Pham, his colleague, have looked at a number of states where – we’ve rolled out the first four of those states this week, and in very general terms, I’ll let Rob talk more – but we found that about 4 to 5 percent of pension fund assets are invested in oil and natural-gas stocks. Yet about 9 to 12 percent of the returns are, for those pension funds, are coming from those stocks.

So clearly, what the study shows, and again this is preliminary results just from four states, what it shows is that oil and natural-gas industry stocks are very important to the health of state pension funds. And that’s really what we wanted to show here, and it’s an important issue that we think needs to be part of the policy debate as we enter into a new round of budget discussions and potential taxes on the industry.

So, that’s all I wanted to say to start off. Jane, I’m not sure if we want to turn it to Robert or just open it up for questions now.

03:05 MS. VAN RYAN: Well, let’s do this. Let’s do a roll call, real quick, and see who we have on line and then we’ll be able to open it to questions. Or Rob, if at that point you’d like to make an opening statement, we’d certainly welcome that.

So what bloggers do we have on line, right now? I know that we have Geoff Styles.

03:20 LEW WATERS: Lew Waters.

03:22 MS. VAN RYAN: Great, thanks Lew.

03:24 MERV BENSON: Merv Benson.

03:25 MS. VAN RYAN: Great Merv, I’m glad you were able to get in. OK, who else?

03:30 MICHAEL SWARTZ: Michael Swartz.

03:32 MS. VAN RYAN: Good, Michael. All right, who else do we have?

03:36 MARK PERRY: Mark Perry.

03:37 MS. VAN RYAN: Wonderful, Mark. All right, anyone else?

03:41 JIM HOEFT: Jim Hoeft.

03:42 MS. VAN RYAN: I’m sorry, say again?

03:44 MR. HOEFT: Jim Hoeft.

03:45 MS. VAN RYAN: Wonderful. Thanks, Jim. And who else do we have? (Pause.)Don’t be bashful, speak up, any other bloggers on line at this time? (Pause.) All right, why don’t we move forward? There may be a few that’ll join us in progress which is just fine. I know there’re a couple of people who said they were in meetings that might be running a little late.

So at this point, Rob, did you have anything you’d like to add to Kyle’s opening statement?

04:16 ROBERT SHAPIRO: Yes, certainly. First of all, welcome everybody. We –Sonecon does analyses of the structure of lots of industries, and we’ve spent a lot of time looking at oil and gas and in particular, as Art (sic) mentioned, the ownership of oil and gas stocks.

And in the past we’ve established the very substantial role played by mutual funds and pension funds in the ownership of U.S. oil and gas companies. And to many, in most respects, this is incidentally not different from the ownership of other basic industries in America, of the auto industry, of the computer industry for that matter.

These are, you know, solid blue chips, and mutual funds want them, pension funds want them. So this was not surprising. What we were looking at, in this case, was the role that the oil and gas holdings played in the returns of state pension funds; that is, the pension funds for state workers.

And what we did was, we went into the filings of the two largest state employee pension funds in each of the four states we covered initially. Those states are Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. They represent about 3,000 members, both retired and not retired, and they have assets of about $300 billion together.

And we looked at the distribution of their holdings, and in each of five years, from 2005 through 2009. And these holdings are distributed first between: U.S. equity stocks; international stocks, that is stocks listed on markets other than the U.S. markets; fixed income instruments, which would be bonds of various kinds; and then what is generally classified as “other assets,” which is – it includes both cash and short-term instruments as well as real estate investment,investments in hedge funds, investments in private equity funds. So it goes from the very safe to the very risky.

And then within the equities, we looked at the central distribution to identify how – what share was invested in oil and gas, the oil and gas sector. And in general, anywhere between 3.5 and 5 percent of all assets were invested in oil and gas stocks. We then tracked the performance of the sector over the five years and the performance of the other categories as well, of international equities, fixed income instruments and these other investments.

And in order to establish whether oil and gas assets played a kind of random role, that is, had returns roughly equal to the average returns of the total portfolios of these pension funds or whether they were out performing or under performing the other assets – and, you know, we picked 2005 through 2009, it’s not a whole business cycle but it takes in years of strong expansion as well as deep contraction. So we thought it gave us a pretty good view. And, indeed, in some of the years these assets performed very well, and in other years they didn’t.

So this gave us a – you know, you can never judge an asset by one year’s return. You always have to look over some significant time period. And this gives us a good picture of the performance of these assets compared to other assets in the current period. And what we discovered was that the oil and gas stocks, overall, significantly out performed the rest of the portfolios.

If you invested a dollar in 2005 in oil and gas stocks, by 2009 that dollar was worth$1.49, which is to say – or between $1.40 and $1.49 depending on which state, because they have different kinds of investments. If you look at all the other assets – so the return was anywhere between 41 percent and 49 percent. If you looked at all the other assets, those returns range from 10 percent to 17 percent. And so they’re outperforming the rest of the portfolios; there turns are about 3-to-1 compared to – 3-to-1 to 4-to-1 actually – compared to the returns of all the other assets.

Another way to think of this is, what share of the total portfolio did these investments represent, and what share of the returns did they provide? Well, they represent between 3.3 and 4.8 percent of the portfolios of these pension funds and they produced between 9 and 12 percent of their returns. So, again, you see that their returns – their share of total returns was two-and-a-half to three times greater than their share of the assets.

So it’s the same story, which is to say that these assets have performed unusually well as part of the portfolios of the large state pension funds, at least in these four states. We’re now also preparing – you know, we’re doing the analysis of 13 more states and that will give us a significant majority of all the members and all the assets in states’ public employee pension funds, and then we will have real general conclusions to draw.

11:52 MS. VAN RYAN: Wonderful. Thank you, Rob. All right, why don’t we start with questions? Who would like to go first?

11:58 MR. SWARTZ: Yeah, Michael Swartz here. I have a question about whether the people who are the do-gooders, the social – I guess you’d call them socially liberal; they’re environmentalists – are they pushing the share of oil-healthy stocks down in each of the state pension funds, or is that –

12:21 MR. SHAPIRO: There’s no evidence of that. There’s no evidence that – this is –the share is really consistent with what you’d expect, kind of, in overall portfolio – (chuckles) –management. How much you would expect these funds – it’s not that different from the relative holdings of mutual funds.

12:45 MR. SWARTZ: Yeah, you see that push [of] mutual funds a lot where a certain group wants to divest of a certain industry because they’re not politically correct, but I believe –

12:55 MR. SHAPIRO: That may be – that may be true for a particular (inaudible), but that’s not true for the industry. The industry goes for the returns.

13:02 MR. SWARTZ: But there is the responsibility the states have to do the best they can for their pensioners. Well, OK, that answered the question.

13:09 MR. SHAPIRO: Right.

13:10 MS. VAN RYAN: All right, who’d like to go next? (Pause.) Anyone else have a question immediately? (Pause.) Rob, let me interject a question.

13:22 MR. HOEFT: Can – oh, I’m sorry, Jane; this is Jim Hoeft from Virginia. Is it OK to ask a question?

13:27 MS. VAN RYAN: Absolutely, Jim. Go right ahead.

13:30 MR. HOEFT: Thanks. The Virginia retirement system is the big pension fund that we have out here and it has been experiencing some significant troubles as of late. And now –and actually it was one of the few pensions that did not require employee contributions until this very year. And just because of my own lack of knowledge, forgive me for asking this, but is Virginia one of the 13 states you’re going to be analyzing?

13:59 MR. SHAPIRO: It is one of the additional states. We haven’t done it yet.

14:03 MR. HOEFT: OK, terrific. I will definitely be looking out for that then, thanks.

14:07 MR. SHAPIRO: Sure.

14:09 MS. VAN RYAN: And when do you think that’ll be ready, Rob?

14:11 MR. SHAPIRO: Probably, the end of June.

14:14 MS. VAN RYAN: OK, very good.

14:16 MR. PERRY: Rob, I have a question; it’s Mark Perry.

14:19 MR. SHAPIRO: Uh-huh. Yes, Mark?

14:20 MR. PERRY: OK. When you calculate the return, is that just simply the capital appreciation or the stock and the dividends paid over that period?

14:28 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, it is the – it includes, well it actually includes all the gains –yes, all the gains or losses from those investments. Yeah, so it would – it is mark-to-market, if that’s what you mean, yes.

14:50 MR. ISAKOWER: Jane –

14:50 MS. VAN RYAN: Any follow-up, Mark?

14:55 MR. ISAKOWER: Jane, this is –

14:56 MR. PERRY: No, that’s fine, thanks.

14:57 MS. VAN RYAN: OK. Uh-huh?

14:58 MR. ISAKOWER: Jane, this is Kyle. I just wanted to correct one thing: Unless I’m mistaken, I think Rob may have misspoken. Virginia to my knowledge was not one of the states that we were doing.

15:12 MR. SHAPIRO: Is that right? I thought Virginia was in the last group of them, but perhaps I’m wrong.

15:16 MR. ISAKOWER: I think you’re probably thinking of West Virginia. And again one of the issues here is that we try to target primarily states where pension funds were not doing as well, were not as well-funded. And Virginia is one that does meet the 80-percent threshold, whereas West Virginia does not.

15:36 MR. SHAPIRO: I see.

15:37 MR. ISAKOWER: I think that was our reasoning there.

15:40 MS. VAN RYAN: OK, Kyle, thank you for that clarification; that’s helpful. Alright, who else has questions?

15:47 THE BEAR: Jane?

15:47 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes?

15:48 THE BEAR: Hey, this is the Bear. How are you doing?

15:50 MS. VAN RYAN: Hi, Bear. I thought you were going to be on here eventually.
Glad –

15:53 THE BEAR: OK. I’m wondering if the moratoriums and the anti-drill policy –how is it affecting American companies in the performance test we’re talking about here?

16:08 MS. VAN RYAN: Kyle? Rob? Which one of you would like to take that question?

16:12 MR. ISAKOWER: Well, I’ll take a first stab at it, Jane. This is Kyle. Certainly, the moratorium, which has now been lifted, but there’s certainly a very slow return to permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, it is certainly hurting performance. I can’t say how that is hurting stock performance because the market does build in expectations, and the market understands that there’s going – that there was a moratorium and slow permitting process.

But one would expect that, if the administration were to send a signal that permitting was going to return to previous levels, then the expectations would be that these – that companies would resume drilling and would potentially be able to produce more and add more value – more economic value; therefore, you could expect that this could improve overall economic performance in the U.S.But I really can’t predict what that would mean in terms of stock value for individual companies going forward. But again, obviously, overall, additional investments improves economic performance overall for the U.S.

17:35 MS. VAN RYAN: Well put, all right. Bear, did you have a follow-up?

17:39 THE BEAR: No, that’s fine, Jane, thank you. That was a good answer.

17:40 MS. VAN RYAN: OK. All right, who else has a question?

You’re all being much too bashful today. Kyle, if you have a list in front of you, and I don’t know that you do, since I’m in a separate location, but can you tell us which states are going to be examined next?

18:06 MR. ISAKOWER: Sure, Jane. Hold on just a second.

Again, we’ve already done Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Additionally, we’re looking at California, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina and West Virginia.

18:33 MS. VAN RYAN: OK. Very good. That’ll be helpful, I think, to the bloggers we have on the call. All right, does anyone else have a question at this point?

18:44 MR. PERRY: Jane, it’s Mark Perry again.

18:45 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes?

18:47 MR. PERRY: Rob, are these data now available to the state pension funds themselves, and would this make any changes in their future, you know, portfolios?

18:59 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I don’t know. I’d be – certainly, the data – you know, the report is a public report, and so it’s certainly available to the pension funds and their money managers.

You know, I think there are a couple – you know, if you look at the four states – as I said, the oil and gas assets as a share of total assets actually range from 3.3 percent to 4.8 percent. If I were – you know, 3.3 is Missouri; Pennsylvania is 3.4 as compared to Ohio, which is 4.4, and Michigan which is 4.8 – if I were – if I were, you know, the financial manager of the teachers’ pension fund in Missouri – and the teachers’ fund is, in every state, the largest public employees’pension fund in the state; that’s consistent everywhere – I’d ask my money manager: Why are you investing only 3.3 percent? You know, look at the – I think we’re out of line. These have had high returns. You know, I want to see 4 to 5 percent of our portfolio in these assets, like other funds do. That’s what I would do as a financial guy.

But you know, the fact is: Look, there are relationships between returns and risk, and different funds will absorb different levels of risk. There are, you know – and they do –(chuckles) – a lot better in bull markets and worse in bear markets. That’s kind of the history of those. So it’s up to – you know, it’s up to – different funds also have different cash flow needs.

And part of your portfolio choices will have to do on – do with how liquid the portfolio has to be.But setting that aside, if I were in a state with a – on the low end of investments in this sector, I’d ask my managers why.

21:40 MR. PERRY: You have a good point, thanks.

21:46 MS. VAN RYAN: Additional questions? Kyle, I wonder if it might be helpful to the bloggers to talk about this in terms of what the issues of the day happen to be – the fact that the administration is once again encouraging the Congress to adopt a budget package that would reduce tax breaks, if you will, for oil companies, which would have the effect of actually increasing taxes on oil companies, which then would appear, at least to my mind, to mean that there would be – that the earnings would be impacted in some way.

Do you anticipate that this study could have an impact on that overall discussion about whether or not it’s appropriate to raise taxes on oil companies at this point?

22:45 MR. ISAKOWER: Well, sure, Jane, and yes, that – you know, our hope, frankly, in asking Rob to do the analysis was that we did want to have this considered as part of the debate. As you mentioned, there are many here in Washington that are considering increasing taxes on the oil and natural gas industry. They often refer to oil and natural gas “subsidies” when those same, quote, unquote, “subsidies,” when speaking of other industrial sectors, are simply considered part of the tax code, but for oil and natural gas, they’re considered “subsidies.” And they’re doing – they’re proposing these increased – increasing taxes at a time when the oil and natural gas industry is already paying significantly more than other sectors. The most recent data shows the oil-natural gas industry is paying an effective tax rate of about 41 percent compared to other industries that are a combined 26-percent tax rate – overall tax rate.

23:59 MS. VAN RYAN: And that’s for 2010?

24:02 MR. ISAKOWER: That is for 2010. That’s the latest data for 2010.

24:04 MS. VAN RYAN: OK.

24:06 MR. ISAKOWER. And yet, there are many policy makers that will say that the oil and natural gas industry needs to pay its fair share. Clearly, we are already paying our fair share and more. In fact, oil and natural gas industry is contributing over $86 million each day to the federal government in terms of – in taxes, rents, royalties, bonus payments, et cetera.

So this issue that the oil and natural gas industry is not paying its fair share, and we need to take away its, quote, “subsidies,” really is one that is politically motivated, or appears to be politically motivated, at a time when prices at the pump are relatively high and it’s easy to make a scapegoat out of one industry; and that appears to be what’s happening here.

And again, what we’re showing in this study, and in the previous study that Rob did forus, is that these companies are not owned by corporate “fat cats,” quote, unquote. They’reowned by everyday Americans. And it’s people who are relying on it for their retirement,whether it’s pension plans, 401(k)s, IRAs; it’s everyday Americans who are – who own oil andgas industry companies.

And when the government considers policies, whether they’d be a tax policy as you alluded to, Jane, or whether they’re talking about access or regulation of the industry, be it through EPA or other agencies, any of these policies that make the oil and natural gas industryless economically viable to operate here in the United States doesn’t just hurt the corporate insiders; it hurts everyday Americans. And that’s the point. And that is certainly the point thatwe’re hoping to get through with this study and our educational efforts.

26:22 GEOFF STYLES: I’ve got a question. Now, this is Geoff Styles. I’ve got a question about the tax rate. I know it’s a little off-point in terms of the study, but –I’m aware of the marginal tax rate that you’re talking about, and I understand the difference between marginal and average, but every time that I’ve tried to reproduce those numbers myself, looking at the data that’s provided in the Energy Information Agency’s financial reporting system, the group of companies that they report the earnings and taxes for, I get hopelessly, you know, tangled up in foreign taxes, tax credits, accruals and things like that.

Is there sort of a simple way to look at those numbers and try to arrive at anything like that? Or is that sort of an oxymoron by itself?

27:12 MR. ISAKOWER: Unfortunately, my manager of tax policy is not in the room with me, so I don’t have the depth of knowledge to answer that question as thoroughly as I’d like to. What I can do is I can – you know, we have your contact information; well, let’s go offline and I can – when I can get a hold of that tax manager, I’ll be happy to have that discussion with you. He can explain it better than I ever could.

27:40 MR. STYLES: That would be great, thank you.

27:40 MR. ISAKOWER: OK.

27:41 MS. VAN RYAN: I tell you what I’ll do. Since I’m sitting here at a computer and I’m online, Kyle, I will send an email to him. We’ll see if we can get him to come in to the room.

27:49 MR. ISAKOWER: I know he’s out of the office right now, Jane, that’s why – I would’ve done it myself.

27:52 MS. VAN RYAN: Ah, I see, then. OK. I do know that the calculations are based on information that comes from Compustat – and that’s all I know, Geoff; I’m not that familiar with how those calculations are done, but I know that’s where the data comes from.

28:08 MR. STYLES: OK. And I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not a two-minute explanation.

28:12 MS. VAN RYAN: It may be – yeah. Could be it’s real short, I don’t know, but we’ll try to get that for you.

28:17 MR. PERRY: Yeah, it’s Mark Perry. I have a related question to that. I’m just wondering also if the 41 percent of taxes as a share of net income, if that includes taxes paid to foreign governments or just the United States Treasury.

28:31 MR. ISAKOWER: I’m not sure.

28:34 MR. PERRY: OK. And then maybe – I had a – we could –

28:36 MR. ISAKOWER: Yeah, let’s – we’ll get you that information. I know we’ve got your contact information; we’ll reach out to you as soon as I can get that.

28:43 MS. VAN RYAN: Right. I’ll be happy to send that to you, Mark, as soon as we can get ahold of the right person.

28:47 MR. PERRY: Yes, OK. Great.

28:50 MS. VAN RYAN: OK.

28:51 MR. HOEFT: Hey, Jane. It’s Jim again. Is it OK to ask another question?

28:55 MS. VAN RYAN: Absolutely, go right ahead.

28:57 MR. HOEFT: Sorry if this sounds overly simplistic. That’s probably because of –(chuckles) – my lack of understanding. But when the president makes a statement encouraging drilling in Brazil, for example, yet we have – and Virginia’s obviously very interested; and that’s my blog’s location, and primarily my audience.

And so we’re concerned about perhaps trading jobs in drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, and perhaps having some of those revenues come to the Commonwealth of Virginia and helping Virginia retirement system for a fact.

So I guess my question is, in this whole concept of – breakdown of foreign taxes and U.S.taxes and things of that nature, if a U.S company is drilling off the coast of Brazil, does that still help the industry at large and our retirement pensions at large?

29:55 MR. SHAPIRO: Of course it does. The – you know, these are multinational corporations, and they’re global. The value of the company is based on its global business, so that’s not what you would go into the market’s valuation of these companies.

30:18 MR. HOEFT: Maybe let me rephrase my question. Which would help more,drilling off the coast of the U.S., or drilling off the coast of Brazil?

30:27 MR. SHAPIRO: With respect to the returns to the company and to the shareholders? We don’t know. It depends on, you know, the costs of doing business in the two places. And the, you know, the condition of drilling off Virginia, you know, is certainly going to be different from the condition of – you know, be a different depth.

Very hard to – you know, the truth is, you know, again, these are global companies, and you – it’s a – they have global production chains and global supply chains. And it all goes into –our most successful companies are very globalized. And it’s one of the reasons the returns in this sector are high. And so if you’re talking about, kind of, which generates jobs for the United States, obviously drilling off Virginia does.

But if you’re talking about the returns to the shareholders of these companies, it’s – you –we don’t know which one contributes more. What we know is that both – if both would be pursued, then they both make economic sense for the companies.

31:48 MR. HOEFT: Thank you very much.

31:49 MR. ISAKOWER: Yeah, if I can jump in here too, I just want to expand on that last point that Rob made. And that is, certainly, you know, in terms of the stock performance for an individual company, whether it’s drilling off the coast of Virginia or drilling off the coast of Brazil, that’s going to – you can’t make any definitive statement on that.

But, as Rob alluded to, you know, if you’re talking about creating jobs in Virginia, aprevious study we did by ICF [International] identified that there were – there could be about 1,300 jobs created in Virginia by increased access to the Outer Continental Shelf. We could also, obviously – by drilling domestically rather than overseas, you’re increasing revenues to the government, because those companies are paying taxes, royalties, bonus bid, et cetera; you’re increasing jobs, as I mentioned; and obviously U.S. production means that you’ve increased energy security here in the United States, because that’s just that much less that you need to get from overseas.

So in terms of jobs, revenues and energy security, drilling domestically seems to be a better option than – and frankly, here at API, we wonder why the President is urging foreign governments to increase their production, but he’s not – he doesn’t seem to want to do the same thing here in the United States.

33:20 MR. HOEFT: Wonderful. Thank you.

33:24 MS. VAN RYAN: Any other questions on that, or on the study, or basically any other energy issue that you have in mind?

33:30 MR. PERRY: Yeah, it’s Mark Perry again. Hi, Jane.

I’m just wondering what your thoughts are of how did this all come about. Is it just because gas prices and oil prices got high again, that the administration just all of a sudden came out of nowhere and wants to, you know, increase taxes on the oil industry? Or was there anything else other than high oil prices that precipitated this?

33:52 MR. ISAKOWER: Well, again, I’m speculating here, but as I mentioned before, the price at the pump does seem to be an issue where the administration believes they can deflect criticism by putting it squarely on the shoulders of the oil industry itself. Obviously prices areset as a global commodity – prices for crude oil are set as a global commodity. But it is our belief that increased U.S. production, even opening up those areas now, certainly sends a signal to the market that more – you know, more production will be coming in the future.

And right now, when you’ve got a global market which is somewhat jittery over some of the geopolitical events in North Africa and in the Middle East, sending a signal that there’s more supply coming in the future certainly could only help dampen that jitteriness that we’re currently seeing in the market.

35: 11 MR. PERRY: OK, thanks.

35:12 MS. VAN RYAN: One thing I’d add, Mark, is that it’s my understanding that the last two budgets that have come out of the White House -- proposed for the federal government -- have included tax increases on the oil industry.

Now, mind you, they haven’t included tax increases on other companies that get the same tax breaks that the oil companies get. But it does appear that the oil industry, for whatever reason, has been, in a sense, singled out for separate treatment under the tax code.

35:46 MR. PERRY: Right. And that seems, you know, just uncalled-for, I guess, unfair.

35:51 MR. ISAKOWER: Right. And Jane, that was the issue I was referring to earlier when I – when I noted that – when it’s a part of the tax code that the oil and natural gas industry is taking advantage of, it’s considered a subsidy. For other industries, it’s part of the tax code.

36:09 MS. VAN RYAN: Exactly.

OK. Any other questions? We still have a few minutes left, if you have something you’d like to bring up. I know there are a lot of people on the call that have not asked a question yet.

OK. Well, maybe we’ve answered all of your immediate questions. I am online; you all have my email address. Please feel free to send me any questions that you might have. I’ll be happy to share them with Kyle or Rob or whoever the appropriate person is, and I will get to our tax director as quickly as possible to answer those other questions regarding the effective income tax rates for the companies.

Anything else before we close out today?

All right. Thank you all very much. I appreciate you joining us today. Have a good one.

36:56 OPERATOR: Thank you for listening to this installment of “Energy Conversations with API.” For more information or to join the conversation,visit EnergyTomorrow.org. That’s www.EnergyTomorrow.org

(END)

U.S. Offshore Drilling Moratorium Not About Safty

If it were, ALL Drilling should be stopped.

Hey folks,

It's Tuesday, let's check in at the Energy Front.

Obama's pointless, and completely insane Drilling Moratorium, that is due to expire November 30, 2010, is doing nothing to "save us" from the possibility of another "Man-Made Disaster." NOTHING. Yet some in Congress want to extend it further.

What HAS it done? What could it do if continued? It could cost 19,500 jobs, which is 40 to 60 percent higher than Administration estimates. It could cost $5 billion in Economic activity, at a time when our Economy is already in ruins. As for States? It could cost nearly $240 million in State and local Tax revenues. Five of 33 Gulf Deepwater rigs have left or are departing for Foreign Oilfields, taking American jobs with them. More are about to follow if this insanity continues.

"But Pete, it's about safety." No it really isn't. You see, the only ones that have stopped Drilling is US. According to the Canadian Free Press - U.S. Imposes Offshore Drilling Moratorium, but Other Countries Fail to Follow By Institute for Energy Research Friday, October 1, 2010

The Gulf Coast oil spill of April 20, 2010 caused the Obama administration to take some drastic measures, in order to prove to the nation that it was handling the emergency better than the Bush administration handled 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. Those drastic measures include a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling (set to end November 30, 2010), a panel of “experts” to determine the cause of the spill, and new rules from the Department of Interior to minimize the harm of a future oil spill. But how are other countries responding to the U.S. disaster? Offshore drilling continues in Europe, with no changes thus far to the rules. China is investing in all sorts of oil ventures that include drilling offshore from numerous countries; it is even negotiating with Cuba for drilling rights near the Florida coast. Mexico continues to drill offshore with our support. And the United States is lending Brazil $2 billion to explore off its coast, where experts believe 30 billion barrels of oil awaits discovery and production.

Those new rules only apply to US controlled Companies. Even if others are Drilling off our coasts.

Europe

Germany proposed a ban on deep-sea offshore oil drilling at a meeting of the OSPAR commission, a group through which the European Union and 15 countries that have coastlines off Europe cooperate to protect the environment of the North-East Atlantic. But Norway, Denmark, and Britain—the region’s oil-producing countries—quickly nixed the proposal, postponing the issue to January, when President Obama is expected to report on the findings of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig investigation.

Which I'm sure is going to be inconclusive at best, but most likely say whatever the Administration WANTS it to say.

China

Whatever the United States does, the outlook for offshore drilling remains excellent, inasmuch as the industrialized world, especially China, will need more oil as the global economy improves. In 2009, China consumed about 5 million barrels of oil per day—more oil than it produced—and it is looking to find supplies elsewhere. China has spent nearly $200 billion on oil deals during the past few years, joining with more than 19 countries—including Russia, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Libya, Angola, Venezuela, and Brazil—and paying for exploration, production, and infrastructure construction, as well as extending “loans for energy." Recently, China’s Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Company agreed to buy, for $4.65 billion, the 9 percent interest that ConocoPhillips holds in Syncrude, a Canadian business involved in the production of oil sands (an asphalt-like heavy oil). Canada is currently the number one supplier of crude oil imports to the United States, but U.S. proposals to limit carbon in transportation fuels could make Canada seek markets elsewhere, as this deal with China demonstrates.

At home, the Chinese government is allowing Chevron and BP access to drill in deep waters in the South China Sea, after attempts decades ago to drill in its shallow waters turned up dry wells. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has not deterred the Chinese government from allowing BP to participate in drilling off its coast.

Cuba

Cuba’s current production of about 60,000 barrels per day is from onshore wells. But Cuba is planning to drill seven test wells in the Gulf of Mexico during 2011 and 2012. A consortium of companies from Spain, Norway, and India is planning to drill at least one well early next year using a Chinese-built rig owned by a unit of the Italian oil company Eni, and Malaysia’s Petronas is planning to use the same rig off Cuba. Cuba has leased 21 of the 59 blocks it owns in the Gulf of Mexico to seven companies. Besides the five foreign companies mentioned above, Venezuela’s state oil company (PDVSA) is also planning to drill an exploratory well next year, and companies from Vietnam and Brazil have also leased blocks. Companies from Russia, China, and Angola are negotiating exploration rights. Cubapetroeo, Cuba’s oil company, estimates that Cuba has up to 20 billion barrels of oil in its offshore areas, although the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the amount to be only 4.6 billion barrels. Of special interest to the United States is that some of this drilling will be within 40 miles of the coast of Key West, Florida.

Yup. Off OUR coast. So how is the Obama posed US Drilling Moratorium going to keep us safe from the "Evils of Drilling?" Others are Drilling off OUR coasts. Others that Obama and Crew have no say over.

Brazil

Recent estimates have Brazil’s total estimated barrels of oil equivalent at greater than 30 billion. Probably the largest oil find in more than 20 years is the Tupi offshore oil field, off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Tupi is in ultra-deep water, below a 2,000 meter-thick layer of salt, which only the most advanced–and expensive–drilling rigs can penetrate. The field contains at least 5 to 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil. In March 2009, Brazil’s Energy Minister said the country would need $270 billion over 10 years to develop its deepwater reserves. Petrobas, the semi-private Brazilian company that controls most of the rights to drilling at Tupi, just raised $70 billion dollars in the world’s largest share offer to help finance its expansion plans and to help pay down its debt. Last year, it borrowed a record $30 billion, including debt issues, bank loans, and an oil-for-loan deal with the China Development Bank.

The China Development Bank agreed to lend $10 billion to Petrobas in exchange for increased oil exports. Petrobas and Sinopec (the China Petroleum & Chemical Company) signed a long-term agreement for Petrobas to export 200,000 barrels of oil per day to China between 2010 and 2019. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal bank of the U.S. government, whose mission is to “assist in the financing of U.S. goods and services to international markets,” issued a $2 billion loan to Petrobas for offshore exploration and development—with the approval of Ex-Im’s bipartisan board. The majority of the Export-Import Bank’s financing comes from loans from commercial lenders.

Mexico

Last year, the Export-Import Bank of the United States provided Pemex, Mexico’s state-run oil company, with about $1 billion in direct loans for development of new projects of Pemex Exploration and Production and the Cantarell offshore oil fields located in the Bay of Campeche, about 100 kilometers off the Yucatan Peninsula in the Gulf of Mexico. Pemex is the largest borrower of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, having borrowed $8.3 billion between 1998 and April 2009 for oil and gas exploration, development, and processing projects. In 2009, Mexico was the second largest supplier of oil imports to the United States, behind only Canada.[xvi]

Conclusion

Countries with offshore oil resources do not intend to follow the lead of the United States in imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling nor are they slowing progress towards exploration and development of offshore oil resources in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. The United States is awaiting results from its panel of “experts” and new rules from its Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement in the Department of Interior, issued today, to see what hoops the oil industry will need to jump through in order to resume drilling. The new rules include provisions on workplace and drilling safety, with no date for the termination of the moratorium. According to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, “Under these new rules, operators will need to comply with tougher requirements for everything from well design and cementing practices to blowout preventers and employee training.”

Again, US controlled Companies ONLY. Kind of like why so many Businesses take their operations over seas, they can't afford to operate here in the US. Obama will force, even AFTER the Moratorium is lifted, Drilling Companies to go elsewhere where they CAN afford to operate without the oppressive Rules and Taxes impose by an agenda driven, out of control Government. They will go where others WANT them, and give them the Jobs, Tax Revenues, and Oil. Us? Well, we will have to buy it.

The newly appointed Director of the Interior’s regulatory agency, Michael Bromwich, doesn’t think much drilling will be evident even a month after the moratorium is lifted. Although the moratorium does not affect shallow-water drilling, permitting of those projects has been slowed by the Department of Interior because of new safety requirements and approvals by the federal government, which is probably also the Interior’s agenda for deep water projects.

So basically, WE are the only ones not Drilling. We are the only ones that will be effected by Obama and Crew. Sad think is, just like the rest of the decisions they are making, we here in the in the US, will be the ones paying the price.
Peter

Sources:
Canadian Free Press - U.S. Imposes Offshore Drilling Moratorium, but Other Countries Fail to Follow

May the Judge Be Wise

I agree with Steven Newman

Hey folks,

We all already know why Obama put the six month moratorium. It really is crystal clear why. You do not ground all Airplanes when one crashes. You do not stop making cars and say, we need to find another way to get around, after someone dies in one. There is no reason to BAN Drilling for six months. NONE. Well, other than his agenda.

According to the AP - Gulf rig owner criticizes Obama's drilling halt By Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago

NEW ORLEANS – The owner of the drilling rig involved in the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico criticized the U.S. government's six-month ban on deepwater drilling in the area Tuesday.

On the sidelines of an oil conference in London, Transocean Ltd. president Steven Newman said there were things President Barack Obama's administration "could implement today that would allow the industry to go back to work tomorrow without an arbitrary six-month time limit."

Of course there is. But HE is not willing to do it. He WANTS Drilling halted. He wants no Drilling at all. He wants $4.00 plus Gas. He WANTS your energy bill to "Skyrocket." He said so.

Now it is in the hands of a Judge.

The criticism came a day after a federal judge in New Orleans began to mull lifting the moratorium, which the Obama administration imposed after the disaster began, and the administrator of a $20 billion fund to compensate oil spill victims pledged to speed payment of claims.

Judge Martin Feldman said he will decide by Wednesday whether to overturn the ban.

During Monday's two-hour hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Carl Rosenblum said the six-month suspension of drilling work could prove more economically devastating than the spill itself.

"This is an unprecedented industrywide shutdown. Never before has the government done this," Rosenblum said.

Never before have we had an ignorant Radical in the White House. Think about all these people that will lose EVERYTHING. Jobs, homes, EVERYTHING. For what? Obama's agenda.

Folks, YOU need to stop the insanity. November is coming. Get the Radicals OUT. Let's elect Adults that have some modicum of intelligence to them. Living in Reality would be nice also.

May this Judge have a modicum of intelligence to him and may HE live in the real world, where we all know, we NEED Oil. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, the Environuts love the ban. I know, the MMD love to report the CEO of BP is out on his yacht, the same time Obama was, uh, playing golf, watching Baseball, and uh, OH Yeah, sending a bill to BP. Yeah he's on top of things. {Sigh} I hear that Obama may actually be considering accepting some help. But he hasn't really decided yet. "FORE!!!!!"
Peter

Transcript Obama on BP Oil Spill 061510

From the Oval Office
















Obama: Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I've returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we're waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.

On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge - a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.

Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it is not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.

But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we've got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Tonight I'd like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we're doing to clean up the oil, what we're doing to help our neighbors in the Gulf, and what we're doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history - an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and cleanup the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, clean beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims - and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over five and a half million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we are working with Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.

As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn't working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done. That's why the second thing we're focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I've talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don't know how they're going to support their families this year. I've seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers - even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected. I've talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists will start to come back. The sadness and anger they feel is not just about the money they've lost. It's about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.

I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.

Beyond compensating the people of the Gulf in the short-term, it's also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn't recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That's why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.

I make that commitment tonight. Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, a former governor of Mississippi, and a son of the Gulf, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.

The third part of our response plan is the steps we're taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again. A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe - that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion - these families deserve to know why. And so I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place. Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue. And while I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially.

One place we have already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility - a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.

When Ken Salazar became my Secretary of the Interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it's now clear that the problems there ran much deeper, and the pace of reform was just too slow. And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency - Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. His charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry's watchdog - not its partner.

One of the lessons we've learned from this spill is that we need better regulations better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked - not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs - but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation - workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill - a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America's businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party - as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development - and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fear hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny - our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how to get there. We know we'll get there.

It is a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region's fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It's called "The Blessing of the Fleet," and today it's a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea - some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago - at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed. For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, "The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always," a blessing that's granted "...even in the midst of the storm."

The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through - what has always seen us through - is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it. Tonight, we pray for that courage. We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Selling The Dream

From the Energy Front for Tuesday 052510

Hey folks

The State Run MMD {Mass Media Drones}, sold us on a Dream called Obama. They used the usual ingredients. Not Bush. Peace not War. Closing Gitmo. The World will love us. The poor will no longer be poor. The Rich will no longer be rich. All will be equal and there will be peace in the world. We were even told that the Sea Levels would cease from rising to lethal levels. A Utopia will be ushered in, all because Obama, the first Black Man to be, will become President. Hope and Change.

What did we get? The REAL Obama. Trillions of dollars thrown away. Historic Debt. Nothing solved. Banks still paying huge Bonuses, no one can get loans. Companies going out of business. Historic Unemployment. Historic Home Foreclosures. Gitmo still open. The World laughing at us. Iran, North Korea, even China and Russia ramping up against us. No one cares what the US thinks or says. A President that really doesn't care about ANY of that, with the exception of amassing more and more power and control over his own country. The REALITY of Obama is VASTLY different from the Dream. Even his signature Utopia of universal Healthcare may never see the light of day, even though it has been Voted into Law. Well, he is still Black.

So what do we have NOW? The DREAM that is Alternative Energy. A "Greener Planet" that will be a Utopia. No Oil. Just Wind, uh, I mean Solar,,Uh, no wait, Uh, I mean Electric, no, uh, PEANUT BUTTER!!!! Oh never mind. Just trust us. We need to stop using Oil. We need Alternatives. So we stop using Oil, we can start using Alternatives sooner. IF no one can get around, heat their homes, and well, do much of anything, then they will be forced to find another way fast. {Sigh}

These insane people, whom lack the ability to reason, are of course using this accident in the Gulf to further SELL this Dream to the ignorant populace. You know, those who ALSO do not have the ability to apply logic, or reason.

Yes folks, Obama has signed an Executive Order, like the one to close Gitmo, Bring the Troops Home, uh, you know, with a stroke of a Pen, Obama Forms the "Bipartisan" National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.

"What's wrong with that? BP is most likely at fault here. They may not be doing all they can to stop this and clean it up. What wrong with the Government overseeing this? This is a DISASTER!!!!" Right?

The problem is the word "AND." I also have a problem with the word "Bipartisan" also. RINOs do not make things "Bipartisan." It just gives the Left cover to do whatever they want. But it is the word "and" that you need to pay attention to here. It is the "Bipartisan" National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, stop, "and" Offshore Drilling. From the White House Briefing Room.

President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling Names Former Two-Term Florida Governor and Former Senator Bob Graham and Former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency William K. Reilly as Commission Co-Chairs

WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama announced that he has signed an executive order establishing the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling with former two-term Florida Governor and former Senator Bob Graham and former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency William K. Reilly serving as co-chairs.

The bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling is tasked with providing recommendations on how we can prevent – and mitigate the impact of – any future spills that result from offshore drilling.

•The commission will be focused on the necessary environmental and safety precautions we must build into our regulatory framework in order to ensure an accident like this never happens again, taking into account the other investigations concerning the causes of the spill.
•The commission will have bipartisan co-chairs with a total membership of seven people. Membership will include broad and diverse representation of individuals with relevant expertise. No sitting government employees or elected officials will sit on the commission.
•The Commission’s work will be transparent and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Commission will issue a report within six months of having been convened.

President Obama named the following individuals as Co-Chairs of National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling:

Senator Bob Graham is the former two–term governor of Florida and served for 18 years in the United States Senate. Senator Graham is recognized for his leadership on issues ranging from healthcare and environmental preservation to his ten years of service on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — including eighteen months as chairman in 2001–2002. After retiring from public life in January 2005, Senator Graham served for a year as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. From May 2008 to February 2010, he served as Chairman of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism whose mandate was to build on the work of the 9/11 Commission. Senator Graham was also appointed to serve as a Commissioner on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, established by Congress to examine the global and domestic causes of the recent financial crisis. The Commission will provide its findings and conclusions in a final report due to Congress on December 15, 2010. He also serves as a member of the CIA External Advisory Board and the chair of the Board of Overseers of the Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida. Senator Graham has been recognized by national and Florida organizations for his public service including The Woodrow Wilson Institute award for Public Service, The National Park Trust Public Service award and The Everglades Coalition Hall of Fame. Senator Graham earned a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Florida and an LLB from Harvard Law School. He is the recipient of an honorary doctorate of public service from his alma mater, the University of Florida, and honorary doctorates from Pomona College and Nova Southeastern University.

William K. Reilly is a Founding Partner of Aqua International Partners, LP, a private equity fund dedicated to investing in companies engaged in water and renewable energy, and a Senior Advisor to TPG Capital, LP, an international investment partnership. Mr. Reilly served as the first Payne Visiting Professor at Stanford University (1993-1994), Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989-1993), president of the World Wildlife Fund (1985-1989), president of The Conservation Foundation (1973-1989), and director of the Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth from (1972-1973). He also served as the head of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio in 1992. Mr. Reilly is Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the World Wildlife Fund, Co-Chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy, Chairman of the Board of the ClimateWorks Foundation, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, and a Director of the Packard Foundation and the National Geographic Society and a member of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. He also serves on the Board of Directors of DuPont, ConocoPhillips, Royal Caribbean International and Energy Future Holdings, for which he serves as Chairman of the Sustainable Energy Advisory Board. In 2007 Mr. Reilly was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He holds a B.A. degree from Yale, J.D. from Harvard and M.S. in Urban Planning from Columbia University.

OK Lets look at this.

•The commission will be focused on the necessary environmental and safety precautions we must build into our regulatory framework in order to ensure an accident like this never happens again, taking into account the other investigations concerning the causes of the spill.

There is NO ONE on the face of the Planet that can "ensure an accident like this never happens again" No one. Look at the history. Decades of drilling. Countless hurricanes and other situations. NOTHING like this has ever happened before. Yet it DID. Do we need to learn from it? Of course. Will we? Of course. We should learn why this happened, and better yet, how to clean up from something like this if it ever DOES happen again. But to SAY that this commission will "ensure an accident like this never happens again" is just patiently absurd.

•The commission will have bipartisan co-chairs with a total membership of seven people. Membership will include broad and diverse representation of individuals with relevant expertise. No sitting government employees or elected officials will sit on the commission.

You see, the Government will not control it. it is Independent. You and I both know that is a bunch of bunk. Of course the Government will control it. Who do you think is PAYING these people? Well, you are. But you get the point.

•The Commission’s work will be transparent and subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Commission will issue a report within six months of having been convened.

{Laughing} Yeah like THIS Congress and THIS Administration? Please. Not only do I have a Bridge to sell you, I have a very nice piece of Swap Land right next to it.

Folks, this Administration does not care about your energy needs. Remember, it was people like Hillary who said that they wanted to take Big Oil Profits for their own personal agendas. She actually ALSO said that some of the proposed changes would be made through Executive Order and others through Legislation. It was people like Senator Maxine Waters who said she wanted to Socialize the Oil Companies. It was Obama himself that said he would bankrupt the Coal Industry and that he wanted to "Spread the Wealth around." How's that working out for ya?

This accident is a DREAM come true for the Loony Left. The Enviokooks. It really is. They see it as an excuse to do what they have wanted to do the whole time. You even have the MMD CALLING for the Government to Socialize the Oil Companies. Chris Matthews just said that he thinks Obama should "Nationalize that Industry and get the job done." Idiot.

But this is who they are. Obama's Chief of Staff did say “never let a good disaster go to waste”. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing he was talking about. Do not get lulled into the Dream. Deal with reality. This is a bad accident. True. One in DECADES of Drilling. Two. There is NO UTOPIA where Cows do not fart, people do not breath, and the World runs on Wind and Sunshine. There are NO Alternatives to switch TO! Will increasing Energy Costs speed up the reality of Alternatives? I'll answer THAT tomorrow. Do the Math. See you then.
Peter