Keystone Pipeline Stall, NOTHING To Do With The Environment

Obama using YOU as Political Pawns.

Hey folks,

I first told you about the Keystone Pipeline back on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. I told you how this could create an environment where 92 Percent of US Liquid Fuel Produced Here and Canada. 92 percent folks. Open one or two more places here in the US? 100 percent is not out of the question. Remember when George W. just MENTIONED we will start Drilling more here and using our OWN? Prices FELL over night by Dollars. They Plummeted. Imagine if we did not rely on Foreign Governments, other than our Friends in the North, for ANY of our Energy Needs?

Imagine all the JOBS. Imagine our National Security INCREASING by Hundreds of percent. With this Movement, actually assisted by Obama, of the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the Middle East, Imagine ONE Guy in Charge. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the Guy that DREAMS of being the one. Now imagine if he DOES it. Then he says "No more Oil for you." This is not a scare tactic. This is a EXSTREMLY REAL Possibility.

However, we need not worry about any of that if we were using our OWN Resources. We have MORE Oil and Natural Gas, in just one spot here, than the ENTIRE Middle East Combined. We need not worry about someone coming along and saying you want? You do this. ETC. Imagine NO Gas. Imagine NO Heating Oil. Imagine NOTHING.

Now Imagine all the Jobs. Now Imagine all the Revenue. Now Imagine NO worries of this. Now imagine CHEAP Gas. CHEAP Heating Oil. Affordable for all. It is not a Pipe Dream. Well, since one of the things we are talking about IS a Pipe, I guess you could call it a Pipe Dream. But it's not what the Liberal Loons are smoking. This is REAL. Reality. Possible in a relatively SHORT period of time.

So what does Obama do? He puts the Brakes on the whole thing. Why? Because he CARES about the Environment. According to The Foundry - Obama Delays Keystone Pipeline: Delays Jobs and Energy, Too Nicolas Loris November 10, 2011 at 4:48 pm

The Obama Administration announced it would delay the construction of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would bring in more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf coast.

What this delay really means is that President Obama is putting off an important election year decision in which two of his largest supporters—labor unions and environmentalists—are split on the issue. This tactic allows the decision to be delayed until after the 2012 elections.

More importantly, this means a delay in access to easy imports from our northern neighbor, the creation of thousands of jobs, and the generation of revenue for the states where the pipeline passes. Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.

So SCREW Jobs. SCREW Affordable Energy. SCREW Increased Revenue. Why? Because he cares. He is thinking about the Environment. It's all a bunch of BS folks. He doesn't care about the Environment. He cares about VOTES.

Remember what he said about all those Wind Farms? Those that ARE Killing Rare and Endangered Birds DAILY? Remember what he said to all the Environuts that actually wanted the Studies Done? He said, "Kill the Damn Birds." He didn't use those exact words. But that IS what he said. He, his Administration said they wanted all those Environuts to take all there little Studies, roll them into one, and get done with it, so he can further his AGENDA.

Forget the fact they are not a MAYBE threat. They ARE killing Rare and Endangered Birds and Bats. They ARE posing a threat to the Health and Well being of the People they are closest to. We get story after story of Wind Farms going Silent, because of the Public COMPLAINING about them. When the Wind doesn't Blow, how do they run? On OIL. If they are found to be a failure, what happens? They are ABANDONED. Left to stand there and Corrode. But all that? It's COOL with Obama. Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs lost because of his attacks on Oils and Natural Gas? He's COOL with that. Grandma can't heat her Home in the Winter? He's COOL with that. Hey, he told us that with his Plan, Energy Costs would "Necessarily Skyrocket."

So FAILED Wind Farms Killing Endangered Species. Cool. I can hear the Conversation now. I bet it went something like this. Keystone Pipeline? "Uh, what's that?" "Well, Mr President, it's a way to create thousands of jobs, Generate Revenue for the States where the Pipeline passes. Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, ensuring you get Votes from these States, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 Billion in Property Tax Revenue as a result of building the Pipeline." "Uh Great! Lets do it." "OK Mr. President, just sign here." "Uh, wait. What's this? It says something about Oil?" "Well yeah Mr. President." "Uh NO!! No! We can't have that. I'm engaging in Class Warfare. Uh, Trying to push the Green Movement. Uh, I'm making Oil to be the Enemy. I can't do this." "But Mr. President. Think of all the Benefits." "I don't care. I need Votes. I don't need this. Uh, say it's the Environment. An endangered Jumping Field Mouse might, uh, hit it's head on the Pipe while running through the Field, uh, or something." "What about all the Birds being SLAUGHTERED every day at Wind Farms?" "Birds? Who cares? Just say NO. No Pipeline. Uh, right now anyway. Wait until I get Re-elected, then maybe we'll talk about it."
Peter

Sources:
The Foundry - Obama Delays Keystone Pipeline: Delays Jobs and Energy, Too
OPNTalk - Obama: Kill The Damn Birds
OPNTalk - More Unintended Consequences and Who Cares?
OPNtalk - Follow Up On Kill The Damn Birds
OPNTalk - 92 Percent of US Liquid Fuel Produced Here and Canada.

The Right IS Right On Energy

"I guess you are right Pete. The Right is right on energy. At least it makes more sense to me to increase our own production to increase national security and lower cost. I AM an Economist and I understand supply and demand. I will admit though I have never liked Oil and joined the "Green Movement" if you will. but I also understand that we are far away from having something viable."

Continued....

Hey folks,

Back to DB,,,

"Pete, I want you to know, although I am not a fan of Oil and Natural Gas, I always thought they would run out anyway as naive as I know that is now, I did a lot of research on this matter. Your conversation on the Keystone Pipeline and when I read the transcript of the API conference call on the matter, peaked my attention. I thought you were wrong, and as you would say, furthering an agenda. I was wrong. The facts are the facts. You are right. To say that we simply will not do something that will bring about hundreds of thousands of jobs, and increase revenue to help our insurmountable debt, is crazy. It just is. A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought you might like it. I may not be on your side politically, but I am man enough to say it again. The Right is right on energy."

Thank you DB. It IS insane that Obama would intentionally stand in the way of this. Not only WILL it bring Hundreds of Jobs in the Oil industry, but many other areas such as Gas Stations, Truck Drivers, ETC. It WILL increase Revenue, lower costs, and INCREASE American Security to levels it has never been before.

Here is the Link DB is talking about Human Events - Senate Republicans to Obama: Get Out of Keystone XL Pipeline's Way
by Audrey Hudson 12/01/2011

Senate Republicans yesterday told President Obama to release his partisan stranglehold on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and backed up their demands with new legislation to force quick action.

“Unfortunately, it’s pretty apparent the President has decided to delay this past the election,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), one of nearly 40 sponsors of a bill ordering Obama to act within 60 days.

“If I were speculating about the political calculations, I guess I would conclude that he’s looked along the pipeline [route] and concluded he’s not likely to carry any of those states. And by delaying it, he’s obviously making an effort to curry favor with environmental activists who are skeptical, or beyond skeptical, downright opposed, to this project,” McConnell said.

That is EXACTLY right. And what I have been saying for years?

“If the administration would simply get out of the way and let it go forward, it would create jobs almost immediately. Lots of jobs,” McConnell said. Following years of delays on the $7 billion project due to environmental studies and other regulatory obligations, the Obama administration recently again pushed back a December action date until 2013.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the bill’s lead sponsor, said the administration is unnecessarily delaying the largest infrastructure project in the country that is shovel-ready.

“President Obama has the opportunity of creating 20,000 new jobs now,” Lugar said. “Incredibly, he has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election, apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base, and even risking the ire of construction unions who support the pipeline.”

Again folks, it has nothing to do with Environment. When talking about Wind Farms, Obama said Kill the Damn birds. All of a sudden he does not care. This is PURELY Political and of course, he really doesn't care about America, Freedom, The Economy, YOU. All he cares about is Power, Control, and Money. All he cares about is creating an Obama Nation, AKA Socialistic Society, with a Centralized Controlling Government. That's it. This is why we can not afford another 4 years.

TransCanada would run the pipeline from Canada to Texas by way of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, carrying 700,000 barrels of oil a day. In addition to the 20,000 high-wage jobs, the project would bring millions of dollars to local communities through property taxes.

The administration now says the pipeline needs to be rerouted around the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills, and while TransCanada has agreed to reroute the pipeline, the State Department​ is insisting that new environmental reviews be conducted.

“This bill respects the Nebraska process to protect the Sand Hills, while providing a common-sense approach to bring friendly oil and jobs to the U.S. without unnecessary delay,” said Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska. “Now that TransCanada has agreed to change the pipeline route in Nebraska, it makes sense to ensure the President’s decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline is not delayed for political purposes.”

The proposed legislation directs the President to make a decision on the needed permit within 60 days for all portions excluding Nebraska, which would later be determined by state lawmakers. If the President fails to act before the deadline, the permit would be automatically granted.

“Building the Keystone XL will be good for the economy, good for national security, and good for Texas,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “This bill requires the President to decide whether or not that’s good enough for him, rather than allowing him to stall until after the election.”

Thousands of environmentalists, with the support of some Hollywood celebrities, have staged protests at the White House this year opposing the project, and have threatened to withhold campaign support should the project proceed.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said moving forward with the project will strengthen national and energy security, and get the U.S. back on a healthy economic track.

“Federal approval for Keystone XL is something that will cost our nation not one penny,” Hoeven said. “What it will do is create assurances in markets that the energy we need to power our nation will be there in the future. It is important to get this project going, so we can get Americans back to work and secure an important energy resource for our country.”

Added Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia: “By delaying this permit, President Obama is putting his own reelection ahead of America’s economy and energy security. After years of review and environmental evaluation, it’s time to move forward on this project.”

The permitting and approval process has dragged on for three years, and TransCanada has already agreed to 57 special conditions imposed by the State Department, said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

“Unless President Obama has strong and specific objections, it is time for the project to go forward,” Johnson said

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook

Yeah unlike all the money spent thrown away on all those "Green Jobs." Just getting the Government out of the way, and letting the Oil and Natural Gas Industry do what they do, it will cost us NOTHING yet look at all we will gain.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - 92 Percent of US Liquid Fuel Produced Here and Canada
OPNTalk - AP I / Blogger Conference Call, Keystone XL Pipeline
Human Events - Senate Republicans to Obama: Get Out of Keystone XL Pipeline's Way

That jobs thing sure didn’t last long

That jobs thing sure didn’t last long

Obama rejects Keystone XL jobs, promotes more wind and solar subsidies. What to do now?

President Obama “is focused like a laser on putting people back to work,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) assured us last fall – echoing repeated statements by President Obama and Administration officials who “can’t wait” for Congress or others to take action and create jobs.

The jobs thing didn’t last long, however. The President soon vetoed TransCanada’s application for permits to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Approving them “would not be in the national interest,” he declared.

It is hard for most Americans to understand how it is contrary to the national interest to create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, increase US gross domestic product by an estimated $350 billion, and bring 830,000 barrels of oil per day via pipeline from friend and neighbor Canada to Texas refineries. It’s hard for us to grasp how pipelining Canadian oil is worse than importing oil in much riskier tankers from unstable, unfriendly places like Venezuela and the Middle East – or how it’s better for the global environment to transport Canadian oil by tanker to China, where it will be burned under far less rigorous pollution laws and controls.

It’s equally hard for average citizens to comprehend how more than three years of careful environmental studies are insufficient, especially after the State Department had issued several reports concluding that the pipeline would have only “limited adverse environmental impacts” in areas that are already dotted with oil wells and crisscrossed with oil and gas pipelines.

To suppose, as the President insisted, that Keystone would generate “a lot fewer jobs than would be created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance” is simply baffling.

In view of White House intransigence, what should Congress and TransCanada do now?

The 1,660-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline would begin in southeastern Alberta, Canada and end in Port Arthur, Texas. Although it would incorporate the existing Keystone Cushing pipeline through Kansas and part of Oklahoma, most of the US portion (from Canada through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, and from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur) would be new. Keystone XL would create 20,000 jobs manufacturing and installing 36-inch pipe, valves and other components to build that addition.

Environmentalists predictably went ballistic. Surface mining Alberta’s oil sands damages lands and habitats, they railed. Never mind that this technique is being replaced by in situ “steam-assisted gravity drain” processes, that mined lands are being restored to forest and grass habitats, or that blocking Keystone XL will neither end oil extraction nor prevent crude or refined product shipments to China.

Mining, processing and using this oil will increase greenhouse gas levels and global warming, activists vented. Never mind that total “greenhouse gas” emissions would amount to an almost undetectable portion of annual global GHG emissions. That “dangerous manmade global warming” is an exaggerated scare that has little basis in truly peer-reviewed science. Or that there has been no warming for a decade, UN IPCC “science” is crumbling at its foundation, and increasing numbers of climate experts are publicly dissenting from IPCC orthodoxy.

Mr. Obama needs environmentalists in his camp, if he expects to be reelected. Radical greens have made Keystone XL the latest symbol of their intense hatred of anything hydrocarbon – and a centerpiece for fundraising. Like the President, they are intent on ending our “addiction to oil” and “fundamentally transforming” the energy, economic and social fabric of America.

Jobs, GDP, tax revenues and national security will therefore have to take a backseat.

As he suggested in his State of the Union speech, President Obama seems willing to generate expensive electricity for three million homes by blanketing a million acres of public lands with taxpayer-subsidized, bird-killing wind turbines, habitat-smothering solar panels, high-voltage transmission lines, and gas-fired backup units. Anti-Keystone “environmentalists” seem to have few objections to such “eco-friendly” energy. But for them a pipeline is intolerable.

Faced with these facts, TransCanada could do as Mr. Obama suggested – and reapply for permits, after the fall elections and after changing its intended pipeline route to avoid allegedly sensitive areas. In the meantime, it could continue trying to win friends and influence people.

Yes, it could. But doing so has significant pitfalls.

It would drag the process out, leave the company in the “kill zone” of media and environmentalist attacks, in a political no man’s land, amid deadly crossfire from savvy and well-funded activists, journalists and bureaucrats. It would also set the stage for anti-pipeline lawsuits in courts of their choosing – perhaps in “friendly” lawsuits between “green” plaintiffs and EPA or State – when and if permits finally are granted.

A further drawback is that focusing on the State Department and White House ignores the Interior Department, Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and many other federal and state regulatory and judicial agencies and processes that will still stand in the way of final project approval, and will likely take years to navigate.

There is a better way.

TransCanada could and should work closely and cooperatively with farmers and farm bureaus, state governors, agencies and legislators, mayors and other affected parties, to address concerns and compensate landowners for the use of their property, unavoidable impacts and damages in the unlikely event of an accident. The company should emphasize that Keystone XL will create thousands of jobs; generate billions of dollars in private, local, state and national revenue; use the best and safest pipeline technology; and bring oil from a friendly country to American refineries, motorists, farmers and manufacturers.

TransCanada should also take legal action, in state and/or federal courts of its choosing, over causes of action of its choosing. The company’s permit application has been rejected – for specious environmental and overtly political reasons. The Administration’s decision is clearly “ripe” for litigation.

The company may be reluctant to sue. Litigation over such matters is not as common in Canada as in the lawsuit-happy USA; the judicial territory may be unfamiliar; and the outcome is not certain.

However, in the United States environmentalists often win in the courts of media and public opinion, especially in an election year, especially with hundred-million-dollar anti-oil campaigns, laden with emotional rhetoric.

On the other hand, companies frequently win in US courts of law, where they are able to compile complete judicial records with solid scientific facts supporting their projects – something that is virtually impossible to do in a sound-bite-driven (and often biased) news media. The factually bankrupt rhetoric of environmentalist campaigns is no match for sound science, when claims and arguments are scrutinized at the trial and appellate level. Faced with defeat, the green wolf packs often go off in search of easier prey.

The anti-pipeline, anti-oil sands groups will not disappear. They will most assuredly sue TransCanada and multiple government agencies if permits are ultimately issued. They will also do all they can to shut down any Pacific Gateway pipeline, any exports to Asia, and ultimately all oil sands operations.

This better way forward has strong probabilities for success. It is clearly in the national interest of both Canada and the United States that it be taken, and that it succeed.
Paul Driessen
____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

AP I / Blogger Conference Call, Keystone XL Pipeline

API/Blogger Conference Call

Hey folks,

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

Moderator:
Jane Van Ryan, API

Speakers:

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

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

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

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

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

1:50 JANET ANNESLEY: My pleasure.

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

Can you perhaps describe API’s position on this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ll now be happy to answer your questions.

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

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

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

So, who’d like to go first?

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

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

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

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

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

This is Cindy.

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

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

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

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

12:53 MS. TVERBERG: Thank you.

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

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

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

Well, it just – it continued to be extended.

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

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

Does that help, Gail?

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

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

14: 04 LEW WATERS: Jane?

14:05 MS. VAN RYAN: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

15: 22 MS. SCHILD: Thanks, Peter.

15:23 MR. WATERS: Thank you.

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

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

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

MS. VAN RYAN: Go right ahead, Brian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20: 03 MR. DURBIN: I’m sorry, any –

20:04 MS. SCHILD: Consumers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21:22 MS. VAN RYAN: Additional questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37:41 MR. STYLES: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40:56 MS. VAN RYAN: Very good.

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

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

(END)

Tension Builds In The Strait Of Hormuz

With the Keystone Pipeline in place, we would need not worry about this type of insanity.

Hey folks,

So on Tuesday, Iran threatened to close down the Strait of Hormuz. It is the strip of water separating Oman and Iran, which connects the biggest Gulf Oil Producers, including Saudi Arabia, with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. This is where we, and many others around the World get a big portion of the supply for our Energy Needs.

On Tuesday, Iran said if Obama and Crew, America, and some of the rest of the World even think of imposing tougher Sanctions on Iran, or interfere in any way in their Nuclear Program, they would Shut the Strait of Hormuz down and STOP any flow of Oil from going through. They said Closing it down would not be difficult,,,,

"it will be easier than drinking a glass of water,"

Now to assure Americans and our Allies around the world, WE are starting to talk tough. According to Reuters - U.S. Fifth Fleet says won't allow Hormuz disruption by Parisa Hafezi and Myra MacDonald; Editing by Alison Williams

(Reuters) - The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it would not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran threatened to stop ships moving through the world's most important oil route.

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated," the Bahrain-based fleet said in an e-mail.

So how will we stop them if they try? There is only one way. Attack the Iranian Ships. Right? Use FORCE against FORCE. Do you think that they will just go home? Nope. They will use Force and CLAIM Self Defense. Ship to Ship has the potential to turn out to be a full Fledged War.

Now many feel that this is not a REAL Threat.

A British Foreign Office spokesman called the Iranian threat

"rhetoric," saying: "Iranian politicians regularly use this type of rhetoric to distract attention from the real issue, which is the nature of their nuclear program."

Which is TRUE, however, have you seen the Price of Gas? That's right, just based on this new Threat, Oil hit $100 a Barrel and has the potential of climbing higher, which means, the Price at the Pump, which has been pretty reasonable lately, will start to go up as well. So even though Iran is no match for the US Fifth Fleet, even a few day or Weeks disruption will cause havoc on American People who are already hurting financially and will feel the sting at the pump if it goes up to $4 plus again.

Meanwhile, Iran continues it's Nuclear Quest and WILL achieve their goal if allowed to do so. They WILL Bomb Israel, and they WILL attack US. They said so. That has been a goal of Little Hitler {President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad} for YEARS. To "Wipe Israel of the Map." Israel is not going to wait too much longer.

As I keep pointing out to you. When Bush said, "We WILL Drill more here. We WILL use our own resources." The Price of Oil PLUMMETED. It fell like a ROCK. Just the mere mention of this. When Obama said, "No we won't." Threaten to bankrupt the Coal Industry, announced Cap and Tax, put a Moratorium in place, then a de facto Moratorium, and started to attack ANYTHING Oil, the Price SKYROCKETED again. If we only had started ACTUALLY doing it back when Bush SAID, we would be flowing with our OWN Oil right now. Then with the Keystone Pipeline, that Obama is blocking, we would create Tens if not Hundreds of THOUSANDS of Jobs, Lower Prices, and INCREASE National Security. We would be getting 92 percent of our Liquid Energy Needs from RIGHT HERE and our friends in the North. NOT from these Countries that HATE us.

Forget the Jobs. Forget the cost of Oil. It would be real easy for Iran, or ANYONE, to cripple the US by shutting down the Oil Routes. It would be hard to fight a War with no Fuel for the Ships and Planes. Just for the National Security Aspect of it, we NEED the Keystone Pipeline and we NEED to use our own resources.

Yet, here we are, playing War games with Iran in the Strait Of Hormuz. Russia is up to it's old tricks and Putin is on his way back to the Presidency, China is a bit uppity over our Debt, and NO ONE knows what to expect of North Korea. The Islamofascists have all but taken over the Middle East, with help FROM Obama, and Obama just opened the Door for Little Hitler himself to walk right into Iraq. Meanwhile, thanks to Obama and Crew, we are STILL reliant on Foreign Governments, most of which HATER us, for our Energy Supply Needs. For someone that is suppose to be the most Brilliant Person to ever hold Office, still no proof of this whatsoever, this should not be hard to understand. It's NOT Brain Surgery. The World is getting more Dangerous, and WE are doing NOTHING to protect ourselves. It is time for a CHANGE.
Peter

Sources:
Reuters - U.S. Fifth Fleet says won't allow Hormuz disruption

Fear IS The Factor

Which is the whole point behind Global Warming.

Hey folks,

First, a quick update. Yes I have severe Bronchitis again. Just came from the Doctors Yesterday for a follow up and not getting better. Shot in the Arm, and the Bottom, an Inhaler, and a new set of Meds. If this round, Round two, doesn't knock it out, I may have to see Hospital Help. Thank you for all the Warm Thoughts, well wishes, and Prayers. They really mean a lot. Been my experience that a Hospital is no place to get better, so I'm working hard at showing signs of improvement by Wednesday this Week. Thank you to all my Facebook Friends as well.

I'll tell ya one thing, being sick DOES afford me some time to catch up on Emails, catch up with some of you, Surf and Scan the News, and take some real time to see what is happening in the World. I also have some extra time to catch up on some TV. Not sleeping at night, you find some pretty interesting stuff.

One of the things I watched yesterday was Conspiracy TheoryW/ Jesse Ventura: Global Warming Now you all know Jesse Ventura. Some of you from the old WWF days. Some of you from him being the Governor of Minnesota. Some of you from the ill fated XFL. But you all know him. He is a FRIEND of Al Gore. He was a BELIEVER in Man-Made Global Warming. So for him to take this on was interesting to me. Now it was done back in 2009. Even the more reason to watch it today. All the information we have now? It really helps to put things in prospective. What did he find? It's a SCAM. It's all about Power, Control, and Money. Where have you heard that before?

Fear IS the factor. FEAR is the whole point behind Global Warming. Remember the Psychology of Brain Washing you into thinking "Green"

There's little research on how to lower people's energy use, but early evidence suggests that many people will change if:

• They think others similar to themselves are jumping on the "green" bandwagon.

• They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

• They feel able to make a difference by taking concrete steps.

• They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life. {AKA Polar Bears}

They are telling you what they are doing.

This is the very definition of Scaryence. Scare Science. "Don't forget, if all else fails, the KIDS. Bring up the kids."

As the Documentary Conspiracy TheoryW/ Jesse Ventura: Global Warming pointed out, since those getting fleeced get nothing from it, convince them they are saving the Planet. But as they pointed out as well, is the same thing I have been telling you for years. It's all about Power, Control, every aspect of your Private Lives, to of course, all that Money.

So now, in 2011, with more and more Scientists, including some of Al Gore's own, coming out and saying that it's a Hoax, A SCAM, and with all the evidence of them cooking the Books, more and more people are just not buying it. But this is not stopping them from using the Fear Factor. From attempting to turn it into a Religion This way they can tell you how Evil you are and how they must protect the Planet From YOU. So this, they feel, gives them cart blanch authority to attack those that are not following their agenda, and rewarding those who are. Hence Obama's de facto Moratorium, delaying the Keystone Pipeline, bankrupting the Coal Industry. ETC.

So a friend of mine sent this in to me. It's by Kevin Moody. Published: Thursday, December 08, 2011, 5:05 AM over at PennLive.com - Fear factors shouldn't direct our nation's energy policies

Pennsylvania is fortunate to be in the center of a challenging debate over energy, with coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and renewable sources such as wind power all having a “home” here. The Marcellus Shale has put that much more of a spotlight on the state, and its early production rate shows a long-term and huge potential for natural gas from this formation.

While all this activity is happening here, we also should look at the broader concern: that our nation’s energy policy sorely needs to move in a new direction. Reliable, affordable energy supplies are essential to a viable economy. New jobs are created when energy resources are explored and developed. Other benefits accrue to communities. Given the state of the nation, one would think that lawmakers, regulators and leaders in Washington would get it.

The Numbers do not lie. Hundreds of Thousands of new Jobs, Billions in NEW Revenue to States and Federal Government Streams, lower Energy Costs for all.

Instead, in the last three years, the Obama administration has done its best to block the development of new domestic oil and natural gas supplies. It has refused to allow drilling along the East Coast and on other energy-rich federal lands.

Now, to make energy matters worse, the president has delayed until after the 2012 elections a decision on allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and the U.S., threatening the creation of about 20,000 jobs and preventing the flow of an additional 830,000 barrels of Canadian oil to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast. The delay has prompted Canadian officials to step up efforts to sell oil to other energy-hungry customers, including China.

Which even some on Obama's own side say is COMPLETELY POLITICAL and unnecessary.

Although the president’s anti-oil and natural gas actions might sound fine to his political base prior to 2012, they put the nation’s economic and energy health at risk. By limiting domestic energy production, America will not experience the economic boost, jobs and tax revenues offered by increased domestic oil and natural gas production.

These considerations, however, are not the focus of today’s energy policy debate. They have been supplanted by a campaign of fear of air pollution, fear of water contamination, fear of health effects and other often unsubstantiated worries that have been become part and parcel of the energy conversation

AKA Global Warming. Uh, We're not warming... Uh, Climate Change. Yeah. That's it.

The fears are fed by the scare tactics that have become a staple in political and public interest campaigns. Even the president has used fear as a means to avoid making tough decisions that could improve U.S. energy security. His statement explaining the Keystone pipeline delay cited concerns over “the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment,” even though the $13 billion pipeline project has been studied for three years and cleared by two environmental impact statements.

Yet? Wind Farms? Kill the Damn Birds.

Similarly, anti-drilling groups use fear-mongering as a weapon against hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. They assert that hydraulic fracturing will poison our drinking water and harm human health. In one recent demonstration, protesters donned cow costumes and claimed that the fracturing process would poison milk supplies at schools.

As long as unfounded and irrational fears overshadow the facts, elected officials will find it difficult to make sound energy policy decisions. They know that misled and frightened voters aren’t going to focus on the benefits of oil and natural gas production, even when it helps their unemployed neighbors find jobs.

According to the state Department of Labor and Industry, an estimated 214,000 Marcellus Shale-related jobs have been created in the commonwealth since 2008. Elected officials seem to find it expedient to throw taxpayer money at so-called green energy companies even if the projects aren’t commercially viable. There’s no doubt that the fears ginned up against traditional fuels paved the way for the administration’s $535 billion investment in Solyndra.

There are times when fear is a positive force. It reminds us to buckle our seat belts, blow out candles to prevent fires and teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street. But it should not be used as the basis for key policy decisions that could frame our economic and energy future.

Just like many other things we have talked about here, Kevin, oh, by the way, Kevin Moody is Vice President and General Counsel for the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association. So another guy that KNOWS what he is talking about. Not some "Government Expert" but someone in the Business, that KNOWS the Business. But just like the many things that we have talked about over the years, FEAR is a powerful tool for those who know how to use it. But Fear is NOT what we need. What we need are REAL Solutions to the REAL Problems that we face. The answer is not hard to understand. It's right in front of our Faces. Fear not, that which is not real.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Global Warming Religion 2007
OPNTalk - Follow Up On Kill The Damn Birds
Conspiracy TheoryW/ Jesse Ventura: Global Warming
PennLive.com - Fear factors shouldn't direct our nation's energy policies

Jumping to The Conspiracy Side?

Or just looking at the FACTS.

Hey folks,

I know, I know, some of you are going to be thinking that I have completely lost it. I understand that some of you will think I have TOTALLY jumped over to the Black Helicopters, Tin Foil Hat, Conspiracy Camp. But I'm sorry, I BARELY believe in Coincidence in any form to begin with, and all this? All this is TOO Coincidental for me.

OK. First, Obama comes out and says we WILL Drill more. He WILL uphold Bush's lifting of the Moratorium. Remember that? Right after his Election. Finally, NOTHING is going to stand in our way of using our own Natural Resources. We will be Energy Independent and Energy Costs will come down. What happens? A Drilling Rig explodes two weeks later.

When THAT turned out to NOT be as big a Disaster as the Left Hoped, and Obama was said to be thinking about lifting the REINSTATED Moratorium, what happens? An 18 Wheeler, just sitting at the dock, explodes at a Oil Refinery. There was another Rig Fire.

Now then, look at Coal. When Coal started to be talked up, and when Obama seemed to be running away from VP Biden's comments "NO dirty Coal Plants HERE." What happens? Yup. Coal Mines Disasters. Not one. But MANY, and Multiple places around the World.

So what do we have today? Obama and the Left USING all this to keep the De facto Moratorium in place, and Obama doing what he SAID he would do, attempting to BANKRUPT the Coal Industry.

So now just the past Month, with Gas Prices and the cost to Heat and Cool your Home starting to Skyrocket again, we talked about the Keystone Pipeline, and how it could be. 92 Percent of US Liquid Fuel Produced Here and Canada. We talked in depth about this and API had a Blogger Conference call on this very subject. So what happens? You guessed it. A Pipeline "accident." According to CBS News - Yellowstone oil pipeline was cited for safety

(AP) LAUREL, Mont. - An oil pipeline that spewed tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into Montana's Yellowstone River was temporarily shut down in May because of concerns over rising waters, and regulators twice in the last year warned Exxon Mobil of several safety violations along the line.

Exxon Mobil officials estimated that up to 1,000 barrels, or 42,000 gallons, spilled late Friday night before the flow from the damaged pipeline was stopped. The break near Laurel has fouled miles of riverbank and forced municipalities and irrigation districts to close intakes across eastern Montana.

By early Monday the company had received 70 calls into a hotline set up for property owners suffering from the spill, although spokesman Alan Jeffers said not all of those were reports of oil.

Jeffers said 125 workers were on the ground Monday cleaning up scattered sections of riverbank that received crude. But he added that there was no longer a defined slick of oil moving down the river and the impacts were unlikely to grow.

"It's unlikely there's any oil in the water at this point," Jeffers said. "That doesn't mean we know where it all is."

Officials in Yellowstone County were working with the company to connect cleanup personnel with affected property owner, Commissioner John Ostlund said.

Montana's Disaster and Emergency Services Division was unable early Monday to give an update on the spill, including whether the oil had in fact dissipated. Environmental Protection Agency officials also could not immediately provide any new information.

So again, not big enough. They were hoping for BIGGER. But do not fret folks, the Pictures of oil covered animals are out there making their rounds. Oh by the way?

The cause of the spill has not yet been determined, but company and government officials have speculated that high waters in recent weeks may have scoured the river bottom and exposed the pipeline to debris that could have damaged the pipe. Eastern Montana received record rainfall in the last month and also has a huge snowpack in the mountains that is melting, which has resulted in widespread flooding.

"We are very curious about what may have happened at the bottom of the river. We don't have that yet," Pruessing said

And of course they got some Moron to get their 15 minutes and make Idiotic Statements like this.

"The smell has been enough to gag a maggot," said Corbin, 64. "I just hope it doesn't come too far because I'm on a well, and I won't appreciate having to shower in Exxon oil."

Oh the story goes on Oil is Evil, they do not care, and even though:

The spill was small compared to other oil-related disasters, such as the 11 million gallons leaked by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989. But officials said the pristine nature of the Yellowstone, along with its turbulent waters and riverside communities, complicated their cleanup efforts and attempts to assess the damage.

It will still be YEARS before we fully understand the SEVERITY of the Evil Moves by Big Oil. Yes, we do not know how this happened, {They really do not care HOW} we just know it did. And WE CAN NOT HAVE ANOTHER INCIDENT LIKE THIS!. We need MORE regulation and MORE Government Control, to protect the People and Nature. We need to go GREEN. No new Pipeline until we discover how this happened and find a way to prevent this in the future. {Sigh}

Now I know, like I said, some of you think I jumped over to Kookville. Some of you think I have proudly put on my Tin Foil Hat. I know that when I entertained the thought that the Rig Explosion may have been caused by someone furthering an agenda, that even those in the Industry said it was unlikely that anyone could pull it off. But NOW? When you sit back and look at the BIG PICTURE and the TIMING of all these "Accidents," one has to at lease consider, IS there more to it? I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Peter

Sources:
CBS News - Yellowstone oil pipeline was cited for safety

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

We Have It, They Admit It, However, We Can't Use IT.

This is a GREAT Article.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to ya. This is a GREAT Article. It really is. Just one problem, which it even admits. It's by News Chief - What U.S. energy crisis? Published: Monday, March 26, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.

Every election year, the politicians take malicious delight in panicking Americans with lurid predictions of an imminent energy crisis: We're running out of oil. We're running out of natural gas. The oil sheikhs will be dictating how we run the country.

The solution, of course, is always to elect the politicians making the charges. It's all nonsense.

OK remember this. To say we need to Elect a Politician to CHANGE Obama's Energy Policies is nonsense? We will look at this again in a few seconds.

A March 20 Wall Street Journal commentary by Citi's top commodities researcher, Ed Morse, contends that "in energy, North America is becoming the new Middle East."

That might have been an overstatement, but not by much.

The U.S. and Canada's proven reserves of oil and natural gas are increasing at rates that would have been considered fantasy only a few years ago.

The conservative calculations of the Energy Information Administration said oil reserves increased 8.6 percent from December 2008 to December 2009 and natural gas reserves rose 11.3 percent — and those were economically down years when exploration would presumably slow down.

Natural gas reserves reached their highest level since 1971.

Proven reserves are those that the EIA deems reasonably recoverable given existing technology and economic conditions.

Of course, the technology is constantly improving and high demand makes the recovery profitable.

And then there are new discoveries, like the Bakken Field underlying almost all of North Dakota and parts of South Dakota and Montana. It is estimated to hold 481 billion barrels of oil.

Indeed, because of our refining capacity, the United States became a net petroleum exporter last year for the first time since 1949.

In The Wall Street Journal, Morse writes, "The United States has become the fastest-growing oil and gas producer in the world, and it is likely to remain so for the rest of this decade and into the 2020s."

Now this is true. However, a bit misleading. This is IN SPITE of Obama's War on Energy. His outright hostility to anything Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. IN SPITE of Obama standing in the way, we have been able to do this. Imagine what we could do if he would get OUT of the way.

Canada is enjoying a similar boom in production and explorations. And one can hope that the overregulation and underinvestment restricting production in Mexico and Venezuela won't last forever.

We would profit greatly from and WITH them if Obama would allow the Keystone Pipeline to be fully built. He is NOT. HE is standing in the way of this also.

In the United States, it would help if the federal government wouldn't get distracted by uneconomic and wasteful incentives for ethanol, electric cars, wind mills that chop up great numbers of birds for tiny contributions to the electricity grid and schemes for extracting fuel from random plants.

OBAMA!

The government's efforts should be directed to research, investment and regulation to insure that this energy, which our economy must have, is extracted cleanly and safely.

The "new Middle East" sounds pretty good energy-wise, but we'd just as soon skip the political turmoil. With the coming election, we have a surplus of our own.

OK, so? "The solution, of course, is always to elect the politicians making the charges. It's all nonsense?" THAT is nonsense. It is OBAMA that said the Coal Industry would go Bankrupt, and he was proud about that. It is Obama that said he likes $4.00 plus a gallon Gas. It is HIS Administration that said we need to find a way to INCREASE our Gas Prices to those of Europe. They have of course backed off that. It is OBAMA that put into place Moratoriums both actual and de facto, that have cost America hundreds of thousands of Jobs. It IS Obama standing in the way of the Keystone Pipeline. Oh, he attempted to take credit for that of which he could not stop if he wanted to, and what he has no say on, but he IS blocking the Majority of it for no other reason than Politics.

It IS OBAMA who keeps throwing hundreds of Billions of Dollars into Companies that do nothing but line the Pockets of their CEO's, fire Employees, produce NOTHING, and go out of business. No folks, it's NOT nonsense. It's FACT! We need someone in Office that understands REALITY, and is committed to doing what we need to do. Forget the Gas Prices, that we KNOW from History WILL go down. Forget the new Jobs it WILL create, that we know from History. We are talking nearly if not more than a TRILLION dollars in NEW REVENUE that it WILL generate. We have a President that just says no. While saying NO, continues to spend more money. Think about that.
Peter