American energy can jump-start US recovery

Tapping abundant US energy deposits would create jobs and restore prosperity By Paul Driessen

Our nation’s economic growth may finish an anemic 2% on the year. Faced with looming taxes and regulations, few companies are expanding, hiring or buying equipment. More than 14 million Americans are unemployed, excluding the nearly 9 million who have been forced to take part-time jobs, or the 2.5 million who’ve given up on finding work. Meanwhile, 140,000 have been added to government payrolls, and the nation is spending $4 billion a day more than it’s taking in.

That is unacceptable, demoralizing – and unnecessary. The White House and Democrats are clueless about reinvigorating the economy. But they have proven they know how to kill jobs, prosperity and hope.

Their energy policies are especially destructive. As President Obama made clear, under his tutelage electricity costs would “necessarily skyrocket,” gasoline prices would soar, “green” energy would become the law of the land, and he would “fundamentally transform” America. He is keeping his promise.

America’s vast storehouses of untapped oil, gas, coal and uranium could generate millions of jobs and hundreds of billions in revenues. Electricity generation industries and the factories and other businesses that depend on reliable, affordable energy could do likewise, if they were unshackled from excessive regulations that often actually harm health and environmental quality.

Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency, Departments of Energy and the Interior, and other government bureaucracies continue to impose a near-total shutdown of onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing. They drag their feet or simply reject drilling permits, display antipathy toward hydraulic fracturing to tap our 100-year supply of shale gas, and impose truckloads of punitive air and water rules designed to shutter dozens of coal-burning power plants.

The President claims he will “pare back regulation” by several billion dollars – out of an estimated $1 trillion in total annual regulatory compliance costs. EPA alone promised “$126 million” in supposed paperwork reductions, while imposing several hundred billion dollars in new EPA regulations. Mr. Obama finally suspended EPA’s proposed ozone rules, which many had warned would be the most expensive environmental edicts in history. But they will be back with a vengeance after the 2012 elections.

Meanwhile, bowing to EPA and environmentalist pressure, he postponed action on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have created 20,000 almost-shovel-ready construction jobs. Now EPA wants 230,000 new bureaucrats, just to process future carbon dioxide emission permits, based on bogus climate chaos models and scenarios. Even our worst nightmares cannot fathom the job-killing compliance costs this would impose on the 6,000,000 businesses these regulations would affect.

Again using questionable to fraudulent assertions about catastrophic manmade climate change to justify its actions, EPA is also demanding 54.5 mpg fuel economy standards – which will result in thousands of deaths and millions of injuries, as cars are further downsized and plasticized.

Even businesses on the leading edge of the “green revolution,” crony capitalism and lobbying for dollars are faring poorly. After lapping up $1.5 billion in government red-ink subsidies and loan guarantees, three US solar companies filed for bankruptcy and fired over 2,000 workers. And still the Energy Department shoveled more billions of tax dollars into more wind and solar projects, despite voter objections. DOE also sponsored programs that cost $20 million to create 14 jobs and weatherize four Seattle houses in a year. It spent $80 billion to create 225,000 “clean energy” jobs – at $356,000 apiece. It shells out $6 billion a year to grow corn on an area bigger than Indiana, and convert it into ethanol that gets a third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.

This isn’t “green” energy. It’s “greenbacks” energy. It requires perpetual infusions of taxpayer money, confiscated from hard-working, productive sectors, and given to companies that have better political connections. That is unconscionable, and unsustainable.

America must promote and permit projects that actually generate energy, jobs and revenues. It must reward and encourage companies that provide affordable 24/7 energy to power virtually everything we make, grow, transport and do. Unleashing America’s vast supplies of shale oil and gas, conventional petroleum, coal and nuclear energy isn’t a magic potion. But it is a vital part of the solution to what ails our nation.

The petroleum industry alone currently supports some 9.2 million jobs, but could do much more. Recent studies by Wood McKenzie, ICF International and other analysts conclude that opening currently off-limits onshore and offshore areas could generate an additional $800 billion in government revenues and another 1.4 million jobs, by 2030. That includes primary jobs for roughnecks on rigs; secondary jobs in steel making, construction, pipelines, refineries, transportation and other sectors; and indirect jobs in hotel, restaurant, retail and other sectors that benefit from the increased energy, payrolls and economic activity. We could do likewise with coal, nuclear and hydroelectric projects.

We need American energy for American jobs – tapping resource bounties to help balance the budget, drive down unemployment and get the country going again. We can and must protect human health and environmental quality – from real threats, not exaggerated, speculative or computer-generated threats. We can and must do so without raising energy and business costs even higher, killing more jobs, and stifling private sector and government revenue opportunities.

Over-regulation brings energy poverty and blackouts, destroys jobs, impairs families’ living standards and nutrition, leads to foreclosures and homelessness, increases stress and alcohol abuse, makes it harder for families to afford proper heating and air conditioning, and harms people’s health and welfare. Those impacts must be fully considered, along with putative benefits of current and future regulations.

If laws and rules don’t pass muster, they need to be rewritten, rejected or repealed. Subsidies do not create jobs. Getting overzealous government out of the way, ending government deficit spending, letting business work within a sensible regulatory system, ensuring that companies have the affordable energy they need – that creates permanent, sustainable jobs and brings renewed prosperity. That generates revenue streams that curb the need to raise taxes on productive companies and workers.

As election year 2012 dawns, voters must demand that presidential and congressional candidates explain how they will reform our legal and regulatory system, to tap US energy bounties, while protecting environmental values from actual risks, and ignoring exaggerated, imagined and invented dangers.

Unaccountable politicians, bureaucrats and environmental ideologues have strangled our economy long enough. We the People must now lay the foundation for producing more domestic energy, creating jobs, and ensuring that our children can look forward to a brighter future. American energy can ignite America’s renewal, and restore American jobs, opportunity and prosperity.

Voters need to send Congress, the White House and EPA a message: We need American resources for an American recovery. Slash the crippling regulations. Drill here in America. Produce affordable energy, to create jobs and fix our economy. Do it now!

Guest Blogger On Tuesday

When seeking answers, ask those with the FACTS.

Hey folks,

I will not be here Tuesday, but fret not, the OPNTalk Blog will be. So will the "From the Energy Front" Segment. We will be having a Guest Blogger filling in. His name is Paul Driessen.

Back on Sunday, November 15, 2009, I posted this. OPNTalk - Canada Free Press Calls Al Gore A Junk Science Huckster Of course, we were talking about Global Warming and Al Gore. I Posted a Piece from this guy, Paul Driessen. Paul Driessen is Senior Policy Adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is completely against Global Warming. He also is a Senior Policy Adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and Author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death."

As we went through his Piece together, I said this. "I couldn't have, wait, I HAVE said all this. But he is saying it better. {Smile}" He was on quite the Roll. I wrapped it up with this.

OK. I officially love this guy. Wake up American Journalist. The FACTS are out there. How about actually REPORTING the FACTS and the TRUTH? There is NO THREAT! GW IS BS. And Cap and Tax will KILL the already hurting Economy. I know. I'm a dreamer. But I do hope more people start waking up.
Peter

All the FACTS that he put out there were one hundred percent true. I know, I know, FACTS are something that the Libs HATE. Gets in the way of Agendas.

Well, thanks to a Mutual Friend. MR. Driessen is back. He will be filling in as a Guest Blogger Tomorrow. When our Friend asked if I would be interested, I jumped at the opportunity. So check it out Tomorrow. You will NOT be disappointed.

See you soon.
Peter

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

All The Subsidies Will NOT Create Market

The most important fact left out.

Hey folks,

According to Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, we are losing the Green Revolution to places like China. He is not happy about that. He thinks it is unfair that they give all that money to THEIR Green Energy Manufactures, and we apparently, are not giving enough. According to Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, in the Huffy Posts yesterday:

There's no doubt the U.S. is losing the clean-energy race. In 2010 our level of investment in clean energy fell behind both China and Germany, with a growth rate that is 11th among the industrial nations. Last year, China gave $30 billion to its largest solar manufacturers, 20 times the amount that the United States gave, according to Jonathan Silver, former executive director of the U.S. Energy Department's loan program. As a result, in 2010 China sold more than half of the world's solar panels, and is now gearing up a similar effort to dominate global wind markets.

A, China HAS $30 Billion to throw away. We do not. What he HAVE thrown Money away, we have done so freely and even Joyfully, and we have NOTHING for it. B, our own President, who took over a Car Company and is PUSHING "Green Cars" is OUTSOURCING the Battery Manufacturing TO CHINA. We are GIVING them the Business on a Product NO ONE WANTS.

We are consistently losing both manufacturing and deployment leadership in clean-energy technologies that were pioneered and developed in the United States. That's simply not worth debating -- the interesting question is what should we do about it?

Uh, Manufacturing and Deployment to WHO? WHAT? Were is the Market?

OK. Remember OCAN? Looks look at this in the opposite way. Shall we? I create a Paint, that I SAY will save you hundreds, and in some cases thousands of Dollars. One Coat, all you need, EVER. However, the Price of my one can of OCAN is $1000.00 a Can. So, to paint something like a house, you would need to spend more than $6 to $10 Grand. Oh some out there would take the chance and buy it. But Working John and Mary, they will still buy the $50.00 a Can paint. They there will be others that ask, how do I know that it will last forever. If the idea is not believable, MANY will not even think about spending that money to TRY it out.

However, by me making this Product, one coat, ever, I can make the claim that I am saving the planet. Less garbage, less Paint. Less Fumes. ETC. I can now get into the Carbon Offset Business and sell offsets to others. Now the Government comes along and says, "We want in. We want to be seen as caring about the Planet." I say to the Government, "Well, no one is buying it, I may have to shut down." The Government then says, "No, never mind all that, here is $500 MILLION dollars. Just uh, you know, don't forget who loves you baby." However, just like Solyndra, if there is no one buying the Product, it does not matter how much money I have, how much Product I manufactured, there is NO WHERE to deploy it. Just like Solyndra, I may be tempted to take the money and run, attempting to cut my losses.

So this guy, Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, wants our government to give MORE money to a business so that they will SURVIVE, even though, there is NO MARKET for it. He is upset, and It's not fair, that China can give all this money away. It's just not fair. We need to do the same thing. In his Mind. Throw away more money we do NOT have.

Toward the end of his little rant here, he tells you the truth. He said this.

Manufacturing sits in the middle of a supply chain. You must invent wind-turbines before you can manufacture them, and you must have a market downstream before you can sell them. But if national policy makes this crucial middle link of manufacturing uncompetitive, then the whole supply chain will eventually shrink.

HOWEVER!!! The most important fact left out. Where is the DEMAND? There is NONE.

What we do have a Demand for, is what we already KNOW we have. That is what they World runs on. Our own, and the Worlds own, Natural Resources. Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. With the advancement of Little Hitler {Ahmadinejad}, the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the entire Region, attempting to enact Sharia Law, which is a Stated Goal, one World under Sharia Law, our National Security is dwindling at light speed. Instead of throwing money away on what we Dream we could use, at the expense of what we KNOW we need, is insanity. With all this turmoil and chaos in the Middle East, we need stability here in this country. Not Dreams. Not a Supply of no Demand. But a Supply of what we HAVE a Demand for. This will cost us NOTHING. Just permission to go get it.
Peter

Sources:
The Huffington Post - China Should Play by the Rules, and America Should Play to Win

Blame, Dreams, and The Void of Substance

Even the Dreamers are saying "IF", and "Maybe."

Hey folks,

So why have we not completely switched over to the beloved "Green Energy" in this Country? Why is "Green Energy" not the Energy of the World? We are. Yes America. It's our fault. Oh, and of course Mother Nature. This piece in the New York Times gives you a GREAT inside look into the mentality of the Kooks, uh, Dreamers. It is well worth the read.

Basically JOHN M. BRODER, the Writer of this Piece, is blaming Nature and US for slowing down this "Green Movement." Yes folks, it is OUR fault that the World is not moving faster toward the Green Dream.

He starts out blaming Nature. It is Nature's fault that Nuclear Energy has slowed. He said that is was the Tsunami and Earthquake in Northern Japan in March that "shook faith in the safety of nuclear power worldwide." He talks about how a major Nuclear Plant Builder, Siemens, the largest Engineering Company in Europe, "would no longer build Nuclear Power Plants anywhere in the World."

The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades.

They will simply find someone else. This doesn't mean that Nuclear is dead. But it will most definitely slow the process. But then he blames US, for not joining the UN and NOT spending enough Money.

Even before Fukushima, the future of nuclear energy in the United States was already shaky because of the high cost of building and insuring nuclear plants there, and because — unlike Germany and other European countries — the United States has not moved aggressively toward requiring renewable, noncarbon-emitting power generation.

“Two things have happened in the last year, both affecting nuclear power negatively,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, a nonpartisan research organization. “First Fukushima, and then the rising supplies and falling prices of natural gas have fundamentally changed the economics of nuclear power.” Utilities find it far cheaper to turn to natural gas for supplemental power generation and see no value in investing in new nuclear generating plants, which can cost $10 billion or more, he said.

Natural gas now sells for $4 to $5 per thousand cubic feet, or 28.3 cubic meters, in the United States, far below its peak price. “If natural gas were still selling for $13,” Mr. Grumet said, “we’d be building several nuclear plants right now.”

Yup. He blames us for using Natural Gas, and the fact he thinks that Natural Gas is just so damn cheap. It does not say it here, but the Kooks also hate our cheap Gas Prices. Too Cheap! There is no reason for us to switch to, uh, ?? We just keep using what we have and KNOW works. Damn it.

Because the United States has not adopted a national climate change policy that would drive demand for nonpolluting energy sources, the prospects for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are poorer in the United States than elsewhere else in the world. Renewable energy also suffered a sharp blow in the United States in September with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a once-promising solar energy venture in California that received $535 million in federal loans. Republicans in Congress seized on the collapse of the company to question the Obama administration’s approach to supporting alternative energy ventures and the concept of so-called green jobs.

Solyndra was NEVER a once-promising solar energy venture that would create Green Jobs. It was a SHELL Company and a Money Laundering Scheme. That's all it, and MANY others like it, ARE. But we are not spending ENOUGH! Nope. According to Mr. Broder:

The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of American business executives concerned about what they call under-investment in basic energy research, issued a call recently for a tripling of government spending on clean energy research and development. They said that the energy sector in the United States spent a fraction of what other industries, like pharmaceuticals, devoted to advancing new technology.

Yeah, so NO evidence of success AT all in the Green Energy Industry. As a matter of fact, evidence is STRONG AGAINST it, yet they want to TRIPLE our throwing of money away. Money we do not have, on a Market that doesn't exist, to support a solution that doesn't exist. This is who these people are folks. If we would just get with the UN program, we would be sitting pretty. By 2050 Green Energy sources could provide 77 percent of the primary Energy Supply Globally. I though we only had ten years left? Or is it 20? Or was it 10 like 20 years ago. I'm confused. So what do we do UNTIL 2050? And what is that "Green Energy Source" that will accomplish this? {Crickets Chirping} "Uh, that's why we have to spend more money Pete. We have to find it. If we just got off of Oil, raise the price of Natural Gas to $13 Bucks, and Gas to $5.00 a gallon, people would HAVE to go Green. We have to switch." And I repeat, switch to WHAT?

At least they do site someone with a bit of intelligence here.

Daniel Yergin, the energy historian, notes in his new book, “The Quest,” that energy demand will grow 70 percent to 80 percent over the next two decades, and that the demand will largely be met with oil, gas and coal — used more efficiently. He noted that automakers, driven by government fuel efficiency mandates in the United States and China, or high fuel prices in Europe, are building a vastly more efficient fleet of cars and light trucks than in the past.

He added this.

However, Mr. Yergin said, the number of cars on the road is expected to double by midcentury, to two billion from one billion today, taxing fuel supplies, road networks and the atmosphere.

Mr. Yergin is less bullish on green energy than Dr. Pachauri. He predicted that more than 80 percent of world energy would be supplied by carbon-based fuels 20 years from now, but he did note that there continued to be encouraging developments in alternative energy technology.

“What kind of energy mix will meet the world’s energy needs without crisis and confrontation?” Mr. Yergin asked in “The Quest.” That is yet to be seen, he wrote, and lead times for innovative technologies may be long because of the scale and complexity of the global energy supply network. The competition for energy investment dollars will be between what he calls the incumbents — oil, gas and coal — and new entrants — wind, solar and biofuels.

“A transition on this scale, if it does happen,” he wrote, “has great significance for emissions, for the wider economy, for geopolitics and for the position of nations.”

As I keep saying. It's OK to Dream. I will even share the Dream. When someone comes along and says "I have Product A that will change your life. It is THIS. It works like that. You can afford it now and in the future. All you have to do it XYZ, 123, and done." I will jump on the bandwagon. But as of yet, there is no one saying that they have A. There is nothing to switch to. There is no Market. There is only Dreams. I live in Reality. This is where my Home is. This is where I Work. I wake up in the Morning and THIS is what I have to deal with. I have to go to the Gas Station to fuel my Car. Pay my Electric Bill. Fly on Planes. ETC. I live in a World that runs on Oil. Sorry. But until you come up with A, all you are doing is Dreaming.
Peter

Sources:
NYT - The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production

Awakening from the Green Dream

Again, Reality is starting to interfere with the Liberal Dream.

Hey folks,

I have said it all before. I have shown you proof. We have discussed in length that today's Liberalism can be summed up in one sentence. Quick to Dream, slow to think. But with any Dream, you have to wake up. At some point, Reality comes rushing back in. And although Dreaming is good, in the end, it IS just a Dream.

Obama and Crew, and many like him, are trying to sell you on the Dream that IS Liberalism. A Utopia of peace and equality. Where everyone is equal, there is no disparity of Wealth, Free Healthcare for all, and a Clean planet with low cost, natural, never ending Energy. A world where no one needs of anything, and the Government is in charge of EVERYTHING. For the betterment of all mankind, of course.

Problem is, NONE of this is REAL. None of it is sustainable. None of it is REALITY. Try as hard as they might, it will NEVER be. Look around. Anywhere in the World where a Centralized Controlling Government is the Rule, you have a bit of Equality. The Government and those in charge have all the money, while the People starve and fight over the scraps that the Government throw to them. Look to those areas where Healthcare is Free for All? People only get treated when the Government says they can, how they can, IF they can. Those who rule these areas, and those few that can afford it, come HERE for their Healthcare when it involves more than just "Take two of these and call me in the morning."

Green Energy? Yeah. There is NOTHING out there. I keep telling you that until we can, and we are FAR from it, find a constant, reliable source, prefect the harnessing, distribution, and cost, it will remain nothing more than an elusive Dream. A nice thought. A good idea. But meanwhile, we MUST use what we have and what the WORLD runs on. And what we have is ABUNDANT. If we would only wake up.

I just talked about how the Green Dream is NOT sustainable. There is NO market for it. There is no market because we are DECADES away, if ever, of answering those questions. Over coming those obstacles. There is NOTHING to switch to. At least, nothing that can stand on it's own, without the Government propping it up. And EVEN then, it is not sustainable. According to Statesman.com - Lessons for government in energy firm failure
Editorial, The Washington Post

In May 2010, President Barack Obama paid a visit to the California factory of a solar-energy firm known as Solyndra, which the Energy Department had backed with a $535 million loan guarantee. "The future is here," Obama declared.

On Thursday, FBI agents came through Solyndra's doors with a different message: "Search warrant."

The details of the federal investigation are not yet public, but they probably have something to do with Solyndra's unexpected announcement Aug. 31 that it is filing for bankruptcy, leaving hundreds of workers jobless — and taxpayers on the hook for almost all of its government-backed loan. The collapse of one of the Obama administration's signature "green jobs" efforts might mutate from an embarrassment to a scandal.

Obviously, everyone should reserve judgment as to whether there has been any wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise. But it's not too early to draw some policy lessons from Solyndra's ignominious downfall.

The first is that government is no better than the private sector at picking industrial winners — and usually worse.

You know why? We'll get back to the Article in a second. You know WHY? Because the Government is not dealing with IT'S OWN MONEY. They are dealing with YOURS. If you hear someone tell you that they have this big plan, and they want you to give them a lot of money to take part in the benefits of that plan, you will find out all you can about it before you give them them money. Right? If not, then you get scammed and you LOOSE the money. Well, the Government need not worry about that. It's not their money. Back to the Article.

Solyndra's novel solar-panel design was supposed to produce electricity more efficiently than more traditional panels, offsetting its higher production costs. Many private analysts questioned that business model, especially given modest global demand for solar power and competition from China's heavily subsidized producers. But the Energy Department swiftly approved Solyndra's loan guarantee anyway.

The department has also placed large financial bets on electric vehicles and related battery technology, despite private forecasts that the market for that technology is not ripe.

THERE IS NO MARKET! No one wants to pay $40,000 to $50,000 dollars today, for a Vehicle that can only go 80 miles an hour TOPS, about 50 Miles between Charges, and then PAY another $20,000 in like 4 years to replace the Batteries. NO ONE wants this. There is NO Market despite the never ending Obama and Crew demanding we switch.

This hardly means that government has no role in promoting clean-energy technology. It just needs to limit its intervention to an earlier stage in the process: basic scientific research. This is a traditional public good — potentially useful to society but financially unattractive to the private sector. Leave the high-risk, high-reward business of manufacturing and selling specific energy technologies to the market.

I agree with that. Remember my plan? Start small. Grow bigger if it is Viable and affordability for all can be overcome.

The second lesson is that "green jobs" offer a dubious rationale for federal support of clean-energy technology. To the extent that government creates jobs by subsidizing particular companies, it does so by shifting resources that might have created jobs elsewhere. Political favoritism, or the appearance thereof, is an inherent risk; Solyndra's largest private investors are tied to one of Obama's key fundraisers.

ABSOLUTELY! All this was, was an attempt to further the Green Agenda. There was no REAL desire to create Long Lasting, Well Paid, JOBS. It was nothing more than a Political Stunt that backfired.

Environmentalists — and their allies in the White House and Congress — have touted green jobs in response to industry's perennial argument that cleaning up the planet kills jobs. It would be better to defend the costs of a clean environment on their own terms, as the necessary price we pay for a sustainable planet. When "green jobs" promises don't pan out, it does the environmental cause more harm than good.

Of course it does. Why? People awaken from the "Green Dream" and see Reality.
Peter

Sources:
Statesman.com - Lessons for government in energy firm failure

Iran Now Head Of OPEC / Borrowing 100 Percent Of GDP / New Spider man

Told you so. And I'm sure I'm a Racist.

Hey folks,

I told you about this.

First, while all these Political games and BS are playing out, and Obama still refuses to get out of the way of us using our own resources for our Energy Needs, The UK Guardian reports this: Iran revolutionary guards' commander set to become president of Opec

Well, it has happened. According to The UK Guardian - Iran revolutionary guards commander becomes new president of OpecRostam Ghasemi joins Ahmadinejad cabinet as oil minister, automatically making him head of global oil organisation

A senior Iranian revolutionary guards commander targeted by international sanctions has taken over the presidency of Opec after he became Iran's oil minister on Wednesday.

Rostam Ghasemi, head of the Khatam al-Anbia military and industrial base, was one of four ministers nominated by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to join his cabinet last week and approved by Iran's conservative-dominated parliament.

Ghasemi is currently subject to US, EU and Australian sanctions and his assets have been blacklisted by US Treasury and western powers. He took 216 votes from the 246 deputies present in the 290-seat parliament.

Now I feel more Secure and comfortable about our Energy Needs here in our Country. Don't you? Then you have this. This is great too. According to AFP - US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury

US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.

So glad we cut all that spending. So glad Speaker of the House John Boehner, and the rest of the Republicans, stood tough, and fought for what we sent them there for. Right? He said he got 98 Percent of what he wanted. Good job? Congratulations? {Sigh}

You know, I was here yesterday. No. I really was. I came in and started tootling around Facebook. Left a few messages. Commented on a Few peoples things. Then I saw THIS. Obamaman. Well, not really Obama. But sure does look like him. His name is Miles Morales. He is Spiderman now. No more Peter Parker. Nope. Now we have a half-Black, half-Hispanic Teenager, who somehow has the same super powers? To be the new Spiderman. Why not make him Gay as well? Or better yet, why not Muslim? Let's go all out PC. Why not? I know, I know. I'm sure I'm a Racist. {Sigh}

Look. I have no problem with the Black Panther. I WOULD if the Black Panther was killed off and a NEW Black Panther was a White Guy. Or if they killed off Red Wolf, and made HIM a White Guy. I had to leave this comment on the Website.

If he was meant to be Black. He would have been. If he was meant to be White, Hispanic, whatever, that’s what he is. To CHANGE a Character in the name of PC is completely sad and ridiculous. I will never read it. Not because he is Half and Half, but because he is now Liberal PC. Not what he is suppose to be.

It is really not that hard to understand why people are annoyed at this. What if we make Wonder Woman a Gay Dude? Why not? If you WANT a Black, sorry, Half and Half, to be Spiderman like, why not create a NEW Superhero? It would be better for all. Spiderman IS Peter Parker, who IS a White Guy. Period. It would be like me saying that I want to make a Movie about the Life of, oh I don't know, Brad Pitt. I Cast Cuba Gooding Jr. to be Brad Pitt. It just wouldn't work. He is what he is. Can you tell I'm in a bad mood today?

Obama is not a Superhero. He IS the Greatest Threat this Country has EVER seen in the History of this Country. He is doing more damage to this Country than ANYONE could ever do by flying a Plane into a Building. We have the ability to Stop him. Yet our Leadership in the House seems to want to play the same old Political Games. Time for a CHANGE in Leadership folks.

I will not be here tomorrow. I'm heading down to Miami to the 850 Radio Studios. But fret not, I should be back in plenty of time for the Big Sunday Edition. Have a GREAT Weekend folks. See you THEN.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Obama Contemplating Playing Dictator While The World Grows More Dangerous
Iran revolutionary guards' commander set to become president of Opec
UK Guardian - Iran revolutionary guards commander becomes new president of Opec
AFP - US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury
CBS News - New ‘Spider-Man’ Swinging Into Comic Book Shops Following Death Of Peter Parker

REAL American Jobs / Real Answers to Our Energy Crisis

These are REAL Jobs for REAL American People. RIGHT NOW!

Hey folks,

I just simply want you to read this piece from the Wall Street Journal - Energy Boom Fuels Hiring By RYAN DEZEMBER

Oilfield services companies are doing a booming business amid the rush to tap North America's newfound troves of crude oil and natural gas. The discoveries are pushing U.S. energy employment to its highest level in two decades.

Baker Hughes Inc. on Monday said its income in North America doubled last quarter from a year-ago to $440 million, despite weather-related disruptions in Canada that weighed on results. Last week, Halliburton Co. said its second quarter North American profit more than doubled from a year earlier. Schlumberger Ltd. on Friday said its North American profit jumped six-fold to $673 million, from $116 million a year ago.

Those gains translated into at least 17,200 new U.S. oilfield jobs during the quarter, according to federal employment data. In May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported there were 413,500 jobs in the oil and gas extraction and support businesses in positions ranging from roustabout to tax accountant. Oil and gas extraction added jobs in June; corresponding data is not yet available for support positions. All the hiring, however, hasn't moved the needle on the nation's unemployment rate, now at 9.2%, due to weakness in construction and other industries.

Schlumberger Chief Executive Andrew Gould worries that a shortage of skilled workers will become a pinch point as the company responds to global demand for its services."The ability to provide both North American and international markets with required people in a continued growth phase will be a challenge," Mr. Gould said.

Schlumberger, Halliburton as well as smaller rivals Baker Hughes and Weatherford International Ltd., are watched closely because of their global reach and their linchpin position between equipment makers, rig owners and energy producers. Their profits are a good barometer of the industry's job growth. On Tuesday, Weatherford is expected to report profit rose 36% from a year ago, according to Thomson Reuters.

Baker Hughes has been on a hiring spree, adding 2,200 employees in the U.S. in the last 12 month, said Vice President Adam Anderson. "We plan to continue to do so this year," he said. Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp. hopes to add as many as 450 workers this year to a U.S. payroll that tops 3,300 and could repeat that level of hiring in 2012, said Frank Rudolph, the company's top human resources executive. "These are typically well-paid people," he said in an interview.

After shedding jobs for much of the previous two decades, steady job growth returned to the U.S. industry in 2004, about the same time that U.S. energy producers began extracting natural gas from shale-rock formations. The industry combined horizontal drilling with a rock-cracking process called hydraulic fracturing to release huge quantities of gas once thought to be out of reach.

U.S. oil and gas explorer Anadarko Petroleum Corp. on Monday posted net of $562 million compared to a year-ago loss of $28 million.

The ensuing drilling frenzy fed a flurry of hiring. The run was curtailed by recession in 2009, but recovery has come swiftly. The sector has added an average of 5,920 jobs a month this year through May and preliminary data suggest that trend continued in June. Through May, there are 13.6% more jobs tied to drilling than at the end of last year. By contrast the number of construction jobs in the U.S. has only grown 0.8% in that span.

Now all we keep hearing from Obama and Crew on how this Utopia of "Green Dreams," will Create Jobs and save us from our Energy Crisis. Most estimate that in best case scenarios, ten to fifteen years from now, we may make a bit of a dent on our Energy Independence of Oil and Natural Gas. It MAY create a few thousand Jobs, {GM has their Batteries being made overseas. Solar Panels are being made overseas, Wind Turbines? Yup. Accept for those being funded by YOU the Tax Payer} But it MAY help us reduce our needs on Oil, MAYBE, sometime in the distant future.

HERE is what is happening NOW. Just one industry. TODAY! In the Economic Mess that this Administration and Liberal Policies have put us in. These are REAL Jobs for REAL American People. RIGHT NOW! Now after reading this. I want you to think about something. Imagine if the Government would just get out of the way. Imagine the Increased Production. Imagine the Increase Jobs that would HAVE to be created to support that Production. Imagine the Increased Revenue to our Government. Imagine the Increase Product added to the supply. Increased American Security. Increase Revenue. Increase Jobs. Lower costs for all.

Dreams vs Reality. Which do you think will help our Economic Situation? Dreams vs Reality. What do you think will increase Jobs? Dreams vs Reality. Which do you prefer?
Peter

Sources:
Wall Street Journal - Energy Boom Fuels Hiring

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.

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)