Follow the Money! Another Leftist Hypocrisy
Excellent piece by Michelle Malkin………Read on…………………
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes “hand maidens of the oil companies.” Let’s call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.
Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a “hoax” this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don’t include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.
Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “Assets and ‘Unearned Income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. — Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens — former oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.
Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America’s transportation needs.
All well and good in la-la land, but let’s be real about the limitations and costs of wind power. Past and ongoing experience demonstrates the unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind power facilities here and around the world. Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil fuel plants as backup to be turned on and off to compensate for wind power supply shortfalls — nullifying any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, which are miniscule, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
Not to mention the thousands of sliced-up birds and other wildlife that have become wind power casualties — a problem scientists say would be solved by “repowering” old turbines at a cost of untold billions.
Fittingly, the environmental mascot of the Democratic National Convention — the showcase of their alternative energy approach — is an eastern Colorado wind turbine propped up with Democratic carbon-credit funds that has never produced any substantial energy because of its chronic equipment malfunctions.
But I digress.
Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi’s friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.
Pickens is banking on ‘em. And Pelosi is banking on him.
As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:
“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive.”
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives — namely, natural gas and wind.
Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist’s terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion dollar wind farm investment: “A lot of what he’s trying to do is add value to a stranded asset … he’s obviously got millions of dollars on the line.”
And so, potentially, does the Democratic Speaker of the House — all the while wagging her finger at the financial motivation of others.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28016
August 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
So much for “T. Boone Pickens.”
Typical left-wing hypocrisy.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:01 am
FYI
Q&A with T. Boone Pickens
THEHILL-T. Boone Pickens made a name for himself, and a few billion dollars, as an oilman and corporate raider. These days he has a new mission: promoting the “Pickens Plan .”
By improving the nation’s electric transmission system, vast wind resources from the Dakotas to Texas could be tapped to power population centers hundreds of miles away, according to Pickens. The natural gas that once went to electric utilities could instead be used as a transportation fuel.
actually believed you could do this in 1988. Twenty years ago. That’s when I was CEO of the company Mesa Petroleum. One [million cubic feet] of natural gas equals eight gallons of gasoline. I thought that if I can get to $5 or $6 for natural gas, I could save my a–. Because at that point we had distributed a lot of money to our shareholders believing the price of natural gas was going to go up. And I borrowed money to do that, and my back was against the wall. And I thought that if I could get this over to a transportation fuel, where it should be, because its 80 percent cleaner than gas and diesel, and was cheaper, and it was domestic … I’d get up in front of a crowd and say, “This fuel is cheaper, it’s cleaner, it’s domestic.” You know what the first question I’d get? “How much cheaper?” They didn’t give a damn whether it was cleaner or domestic 20 years ago. It didn’t have anything to do with it. … It was really hard for me to sell. …
And Gazprom [Russia’s state-controlled gas company] last week announced that they are going to put natural gas fueling stations all over Europe. What does that tell you? Yeah, it’s a good idea, I think. Not that the Russians need to show me a good idea, but it does confirm what you knew.
Natural gas is being used as a transportation fuel now. Eight million vehicles in the world today are on natural gas. Only 142,000 of those are in the United States. What’s that tell you? It will all happen if you promote the use of the fuel. If President Bush had promoted natural gas like he did ethanol, a lot of things would have happened by now.
Q: What do you think about the current energy debate on Capitol Hill?
There’s nothing they are saying that I can see is going to solve the problem. Does [drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf] solve it? Doesn’t solve it. It might help.
But just as a geologist, I look at East Coast and the West Coast, and it wouldn’t be very exciting for me to go in there. … You know why? Where has the oil been produced offshore? The Gulf of Mexico. The reason is because the deposition there has been fed by the Mississippi River. Just like the Niger River is the cause of the Nigerian delta production over there in Nigeria. When you look around, it has to have been fed by some river.
When you are talking about the West Coast of the United States, you may have some out there. But the East Coast? … It’s not good.
But let them go look for it. What the hell? It ain’t going to hurt anybody. Go look for it. But the first question I would ask is, you know they are throwing 86 billion barrels around like it’s recoverable. That’s oil in place that they are talking about. …
They mislead the public. The public thinks, “Well, God. If we got 86 billion barrels of oil sitting out there, why don’t we go drill it and produce it and lower the price of gasoline to $2?” That’s kind of the way it’s characterized. Which I think is totally misleading. I don’t think you should even hold a hearing if that’s what the hearing is about because that doesn’t help anybody.
Q: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said you were his mortal enemy all these years, but was happy you were working on the same side now.
I feel honored that he thought so harsh of me. I know Harry, and face-to-face we’ve always been very friendly. They know if I say I’m out of the deal — I’m not into any 527s or anything else in this campaign. I’ll vote for McCain. But I’m not working on his campaign.
Q: Are your views on energy more in line with Democrats’ or Republicans’?
I’d like to think they are in line with America. I don’t see a plan by either Obama or McCain that is going to solve the $700 billion problem. Neither one of them address that.
Q: How much are you going to spend on the [advertising] campaign? Are you going to increase the amount of money you spend on lobbying?
Fifty-eight million is what I signed for. They want to give me a budget for ’09. I said let’s see how we do in ’08. If we go to ’09, that will be heavy-duty lobbying. But I’d rather not get into that. I’m hoping that my plan or a better plan shows up before I have to go do any of that.
Q: That’s a lot of money to spend on a public advocacy campaign.
It is. It is. I’m worth a lot of money. People say, ‘He’s doing this so he can maybe get rich on the wind’ … That’s not what this is about. …
I’m 80 years old and they weren’t talking about the subject. I thought this is my last chance to … elevate this to where the American people and the candidates are going to understand the seriousness of where we are.
The security of this thing is horrible. We should never leave Iraq without a call on that oil. It should be made available to us at market price. I mean, we’ve earned that by the trillion dollars or whatever it is we’ve spent plus the fact that we lost 4,000 people.
And we should have a call on it. Did we go there for it? Hell, no, we didn’t go there for it. … This came up the other day. They said, “How would you suppose we do that?” I said, “When they push one of those documents in front on me and say, ‘We need another $100 million,’ ” I’d say, “Here’s one for you to sign.” That’s the way I’d go. Every time I sign one for them, I’d get somebody else to sign one that says we get a call on the oil. At market price, so they don’t lose any money.
Q: Are high gas prices here to stay?
It’s better that they are high. From the standpoint that [a lower price] raises demand. And if demand comes up, they’ve got to come up.
Q: What do you think of the debate on “speculation”?
It’s a waste of time. Doesn’t have anything to do with it. You have 85 million barrels of oil available in the world, and demand is at 86.4. I don’t think that guy over in China paying $140 for oil is blaming Wall Street speculators for what’s happened to him.
Everybody tries to place the blame. And the blame is our own lack of leadership over the last 40 years on energy.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“Not to mention the thousands of sliced-up birds and other wildlife that have become wind power casualties”
Now “conservatives” are playing the environmental conservation card?
How convenient.
It’s called a “plan”, if conservatives have a feasible energy plan… bring it on already.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Term Limits!
August 13th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The “plan” to which you, in your womanonymous way refers, is to DRILL HERE and DRILL NOW - off every coast, in ANWR and everywhere else there is known reserves.
In typical foolish fashion, you bash the messenger - in this case Ms Malkin - and ignore the message.
Get a life womanonymous. Keep ignoring the financial gain for people like Pelosi and Pickens by ignoring the will of the American public.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Anyone who thinks we can drill our way out of the mess is a fool.
1) Consumption
a) Energy saving technology
b) Public transportation
c) Personal use ie tires, heat of your house…..
2) Alternative Energy
A) nuclear
B) Wind and solar
C) Fuel enhancement products…….
3) Balance Budget
A) Stronger dollar cheaper prices
B) Frees up investment capital for private sector ie jobs
C) Secures the next generations future
As I have said in the past if you think giveaways to oil companies will lower prices you are chasing fools gold. Capitalism is based on competition. This is why the father of free economics (Adam Smith) was a major supporter of anti-trust laws.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
John - anyone who believes what they’re told, with little or no evidence, is a bigger fool.
EVERYONE agrees that alternatives are likely necessary, but that does NOTHING for consumers in the short term while drilling does.
Adam Smith believed in anti-trust laws, that is correct. He ALSO believed in free market economics where government only assured an equal footing by using those laws. IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, did he believe in a role for government OTHER than anti-trust.
Why do you persist with this ridiculous argument about “big oil?” Why not tax Microsoft, Google, or any other successful organization? After all they have profit margins much larger than the oil companies. Do you believe in taxing industry out of existence? Adam Smith certainly didn’t.
Despite your rhetoric and leftist talking points, government is NOT the answer. Free enterprise is the answer.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
The job of the CEO is to maximize shareholder value bottom line. The reason must of oil is capped in the U.S. is because the oil company is seeking the highest ROI. No company would expand supply to lower ROI! If you think an oil companies goal is to lower yield you need real help!
And finally if any of you really cared about the price of oil you would demand a balance budget which would lower the price by 70 to 80% via a stronger dollar.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Isn’t our dollar strange enough? I say we need more familiar dollars, noot stranger dollars!
August 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
SgtMac
The job of a CEO is to make the highest return for shareholders. The concept is simple if you give a grant or tax break to a corporation on the hope of lowering prices than you are a FOOL! If you think by giving a tax break I may expand my business that is a valid argument. And by expanding I will hire more people and help the economy that is a logical argument.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
John - exactly where is it written that CEOs SHOULDN’T make money for their share holders?
DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW! Let’s get some actual FACTUAL data on U.S. reserves while we explore alternative sources of energy. For the SHORT TERM JOHN, DRILL HERE AND DRILL NOW!
I’m guessing you’re supporting our two illustrious senators and their gang of ten? Not only are you a hypocrite, you’re a foolish hypocrite.
You purport to be a follower of Adma Smith’s philosophy, yet you think government should somehow be involved. You say you believe in free enterprise and a free market economy, but you want to punish companies for making money. For Pete’s sake make up what little mind you have!
August 13th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Hey John - here’s some light reading for you. Perhaps our Founders were wrong and ‘We The People’ should be bound by people such as yourself.
Oh, and David, tell me again how this is NOT a supply issue. Ha!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/30/news/economy/poll_drilling/
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-survey-finds-coloradoans-support/story.aspx?guid=%7B7FB74E45-0450-4B29-B00D-055F19D5D5DD%7D&dist=hppr
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/257148
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/americans_split_on_which_is_more_important_offshore_drilling_or_crackdown_on_speculators
Maybe we should follow our Constitution and let the People decide. Now there’s a novel idea…….
Funny how none of the leftists has stood up to defend San Fran Nan and the 200-250K she’s made on “alterantive energy.”
August 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Anyone who thinks we can drill our way out of the mess is a fool.
Amen, Mr Konop, AMEN !
August 13th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
FYI
Op-Ed Columnist
Eight Strikes and You’re Out
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 12, 2008
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.
Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either — which is equally inexcusable in my book — but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits.
The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.
What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 — when the credits expire — and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain’s home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.
But because of the Senate’s refusal to extend the solar tax credits, “we cannot get our bank financing,” said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. “Without the credits, the numbers don’t work.” Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.
Roger Efird is president of Suntech America — a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They’ve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: “Don’t set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don’t have stability in the incentive programs.”
One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, “Sure, we’ll need wind and solar energy, but it’s just not cost effective yet.” They’ve been saying that for 30 years. What these tax credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning curve and become competitive with coal and oil — which is why some people are trying to block them.
As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, “The best chance we have — perhaps the only chance” of addressing the combined challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security “is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale.”
This, he argues, will take more than a Manhattan Project. It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive — and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency — we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
FYI
Oil rebounds after US gasoline supplies drop
from The Associated Press
NEW YORK August 13, 2008, 04:48 pm ET · Oil prices rebounded Wednesday, jumping back to $116 a barrel after the government reported a bigger-than-expected drop in U.S. gasoline supplies. But more signs of dwindling U.S. demand cast doubt on the rally’s longevity.
At the pump, a gallon of regular gasoline shed on average another penny overnight to $3.787, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express. That’s nearly 8 percent lower than record prices above $4 a gallon reached last month, but still 37 percent higher than a year ago; retail gasoline prices tend to lag behind crude oil’s moves by several weeks.
In its weekly inventory report, the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said gasoline supplies fell by 6.4 million barrels to 202.8 million barrels for the week ended Aug. 8, nearly three times more than the 2.2 million barrel drop analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts had expected.
The big drop in gasoline stocks prompted traders to buy oil and gasoline contracts on signs of supply tightness. However, analysts said the surprisingly large drawdown suggests that U.S. refineries are scaling back on production in response to falling demand — not that Americans are suddenly driving more because of easing pump prices.
“There’s no doubt that refiners are making less gasoline,” said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. “The demand is bad so why store a product that you’re going to have trouble selling?”
Light, sweet crude for September delivery rose $2.99 to settle at $116 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier falling as low as $112.87 and after dropping about $7 in the last three sessions. Oil’s advance has for the time being stopped a monthlong slide that took crude $35 below its July 11 high of $147.27.
Gasoline futures also jumped, with the September contract adding 8.91 cents to settle at $2.9323 a gallon on the Nymex.
Despite the rebound, analyst doubted crude would regain the upward momentum seen last month, noting that traders have been quick to cash in on oil rallies in recent weeks and send prices lower.
“We’ve got a good-sized rally … but it still doesn’t feel like it’s sustainable. We’re not seeing the frenzy of buying that we would have seen a couple months ago,” said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates in Galena, Ill.
“I think the true underlying demand weakness is still out there,” he added, saying he believed that Americans were not yet reacting to easing pump prices by driving more. “I don’t think people are going to change their commuting habits that fast.”
The EIA said demand for gasoline over the four weeks ended Aug. 8 was almost 2 percent lower than a year earlier, averaging 9.4 million barrels a day.
Also Wednesday, the American Petroleum Institute said gasoline purchases fell in the first six months of 2008, sending overall U.S. demand for oil products to its lowest level in five years.
Gasoline deliveries fell 1.7 percent through the end of June compared to the first six months of 2007, the first significant decline in 17 years, the trade group said. Oil product deliveries were down 3 percent compared to the year-ago period.
“Higher pump prices and a slowing economy were undoubtedly factors,” API statistics manager Ron Planting said.
The EIA also said crude stockpiles fell by 400,000 barrels to 296.5 million barrels last week; analysts had expected crude supplies to increase by 500,000 barrels.
Inventories of distillate fuel, which include diesel and heating oil, decreased by 1.7 million barrels to 131.6 million barrels for the week ended August 8. Analysts expected distillate stocks to rise by 1.9 million barrels.
Meanwhile, a cease-fire declared by Russia and Georgia in their conflict over South Ossetia appeared to lower concerns that hostilities there could curtail oil shipments through Georgia.
The International Energy Agency dropped its forecast on Tuesday for oil product demand from 30 developed countries, located mostly in Europe and North America, to 48.6 million barrels a day, down 1.3 percent from last year.
The Paris-based energy watchdog’s report arrived a day after China said its crude imports in July, while historically strong, were down 7 percent from the same month last year.
The IEA cautioned it is too early to determine whether the recent fall in oil prices is a longer-term trend. It said demand in developing countries could offset declines in developed nations, and that it sees Chinese oil demand continuing to grow at a robust pace.
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 5.89 cents to settle at $3.1317 a gallon, while natural gas futures rose 12.6 cents to settle at $8.456 per 1,000 cubic feet.
In London, September Brent crude rose $2.32 to settle at $113.47 a barrel.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
SgtMac
I have no issue with a CEO doing his or her job. The issue at hand is only a fool would think a CEO would lower prices because they fund more oil. If so why have they not uncapped most of their U.S. supply?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:55 am
John -
1. Read the title of the piece you posted above;
“Oil rebounds after US gasoline supplies drop”
That’s right, less supply means higher prices…why are you trying to make it something its not?
2. I asked you a few questions, and you still haven’t replied. I’ll try again….Under our Constitution, ‘The People’ get to make the call. In this case, ‘The People’ support drilling everywhere right NOW. Are you saying you don’t believe in the will of ‘The People?’ Did you even read the polling data on the issue?
3. Ms. Malkin uncovered a direct link between T. Boone Pickens and San Fran Nan. In fact, Nan made as much as $250K from her investments in the company Pickens owns. The have a DIRECT stake in keeping the price of oil as high as possible. Are you saying it’s a coincidence that Pelosi refuses to let the house vote on drilling because she wants to save the planet? You CAN’T possibly be that naive!
4. When did you change your economic philosophy? I guess your alleged adherence to Adam Smith was all a sham.
5. Please provide a few examples detailing how government intervention in a free enterprise, capitalist economic system helps business to flourish.
David - Nicely done! Your “expertise” has been shown to be exactly what it is; a philosphy based on socialist policies where the basics of free market economics are manipulated to suit the state. Hence, your “Amens” and lack of even a modicum of intelligent debate on the issue.
Thank you for leaving the economics discussions to people who actually understand the fundamentals of free market economics.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:57 am
SGT MAC
The truth is I am fairly neutral on drilling, the point I am making is it will have a very little impact on the price of gas at the pump. You do not understand capitalism. Adam Smith warned about consolidation of industry ie monopolies like the oil industry.
If you want lower prices you must create competition to oil. T Boone Pickens is not caught up in NEOCON talking point economics you are for.
YOU ARE THE SOCIALIST! I say use loans that help create competition you are for giving away of tax payer money or land with no real plan.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
=> Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
If you are concerned about energy, don’t vote for the man who won’t bother to vote for you.
.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The problem with SgtMac is that he’s seen the Beverly Hillbillies one too many times.
You don’t just shoot for some food, and up from the ground comes some bubbling crude.
It takes serious capital investment to drill, and make a reasonable return on the investment.
The decision to drill or not are more business decisions than political decisions.
In this energy climate most governmental agencies and politicians are open to new revenue and energy sources.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
. . . and, a decade or more to produce the first drop.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OK. Here goes once more….PLEASE try and stay on topic……..
1. True or false, prices are driven by basic economic principles, i.e. supply and demand.
2. True or false, San Fran Nan made between 200-250K on her investments in “altrnative energy sources” through a company owned by T. Boone Pickens.
3. True or false, San Fran Nan refuses to allow the house an up or down vote on immediate drilling in domestic areas such as ANWR and off shore.
4. True or false, despite John’s rambling rhetoric, “Big Oil” is a number of companies and not a monopoly.
5. True or false, Adam Smith believed that free enterprise without government interference would lead to more choices and lower prices for end consumers.
6. True or false, Captain Womanonymous, David O’Rear, John Konop, Sgt Mac, nor anyone else on the planet has any factual data about U.S. reserves because they’ve never been explored, and the estimates are no more than a guess.
7. True or false, The U.S. needs to develop a long-term energy policy based on the free market and not some government agency.
8. True or false, T. Boone Pickens made MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars in the oil business and is now attempting to extort U.S. taxpayers for upwards of $100B for wind power.
9. True or False, Microsoft, Google, and about a thousand or so other companies have higher profit margins than the companies (please note the plural, John) that make up “Big Oil.”
10. True or False, The U.S. is a capitalistic Nation and a Constitutional Republic where the will of ‘the People’ outweighs any other concern.
OK - I’ll make it easy for you.
1. T
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. T
7. T
8. T
9. T
10. T
Each of these items is a fact irrespective of your opinions. Everyone agrees that alternative sources will, likely, become necessary but the fact remains that short-term solutions are also necessary.
Here’s the final question for all of you……
True or False; If oil prices remain at current levels or higher, T. Boone Pickens, San Fran Nan, Al Gorged, and the rest of the environmentalist wack-jobs stand to make BILLIONS from U.S. Taxpayers with unproven, untested, and in some cases, un-invented technologies.
If you answer that one wrong, you’re only fooling yourself.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
True or false Mac is lost in his understanding of economics?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
True.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
John/David -
Interesting how neither of you answer the questions but don’t miss a beat on the personal attacks. Keep throwing the darts John without bothering to address the issue. EVERY ITEM I POSTED IS TRUE AND YOU’RE TOO BIG A HYPOCRITE to admit it. I completely understand. You’re a hypocrite who thinks the following;
1. Government (READ OTHER TAXPAYERS) should pay for your healthcare and your family’s healthcare because you’re not responsible enough to do so yourself;
2. Government should control what we eat and what our kids eat because we’re not smart enough to make these decisions.
3. Government should handle our energy issues becasue some entity you call “Big Oil,” which operates like ANY other business, is bad and government is good.
Why do I call you a hypocrite? Simple. You purport to believe in someone like Adam Smith while you’re a socialist through and through. You’re a liar and a hypocrite. THAT’S why you lost to Tom Price. HE’S a Patriot and you’re nothing more than sad little man who can’t fend for himself and his family without government (Again, READ OTHER TAXPAYERS) to help you. How’s THAT for a personal attack?
David, as for you, I read an interesting article in the Asian Times that mentions you by name. The piece details how you’re willing to sell out freedom for a dictatorial regime that suppresses the people. Nice. I hope you’re proud of yourself. It’s odd how that’s alright for them, but not for you. You’re a bigger hypocrite than John is. You’re a disgrace to economics in general, and free market economics in particular. You know less about REAL economics than a high school freshman. You’ve sold out to the socialists who think sweat shops are good for the people. You’re in the tank for a ruthless dictator and you act as if somehow you’re superior. Superior? I think not. Please stay in Hong Kong. I prefer REAL economists like Milton Friedman - you know - the kind of economist that actually LEARNED something while in school. Namely that free market economics and socialist regimes cannot coexist. Never have and never will.
Good news for you though David; you too John……I’ve had more than I care to take from both of you and I won’t be returning here. I’ve decided to give up this one-man fight against a couple of fools who refuse to answer basic factual data. Good luck with the socialism but remember this…..Democracy is the Second worst form of government; everything else is tied for first.
This is MICHAEL J. MCCORMACK, MASTER SERGEANT, USAF (Retired) signing off for good.
Have a nice life.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
True.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Mad Dog
Welcome back!
August 18th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
David,
I’ve been running some numbers on the ANWR and 10 - 12 years to market is the least of the worries.
It takes two years to drill a well. Drilling can only be done during that part of the winter when the land is frozen solid. That frozen solid state is becoming a little shorter than it was when the studies were done.
The studies were based on using “ice roads” which would have to be rebuilt each season and repaired during each season. However, the ANWR does not have enough water to create the network of ice roads. Still, we could import enough gravel to build and rebuild crude roads …
Then, if we find recoverable oil, it will not be in a single field. Kuwait has large fields of oil bearing rock. But, the ANWR only has many small fields. Of these fields, just a few are potentially worth development… just six.
When production comes online, whenever that is, the first year will produce 4 times as much oil as the 4th year … and in 20 years, all the allegedly recoverable oil will be gone.
And, when people call this bizarre plan an energy independence plan, they are unaware of how fast domestic depletion will have progressed.
Any oil coming from the ANWR will not result in an increase in domestic production over current domestic production numbers.
And, the percentage of imports will continue to increase IF ANWR production hits a home rum and produces as hoped. Stressing the concept of HOPE.
(Hope all is well with you.)
MD
August 18th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Sgt Mac
1) The reality is Bush and GOP lead Congress gave us the largest expansion of healthcare ever with the Drug Prescription bill on the backs of our children.
Is Bush and every lawmaker that voted for bill a Socialist?
2) As far as food I am for full disclosure.. Do you support Bush and letting stores putting red color into meat hiding old meat without warning consumers?
3) You are on heavy drugs if you think giving money to oil companies is a way to lower energy prices. In fact Adam Smith the father of our free market system warned about the relationship between big business and the government.
Do you think Adam Smith who coined the phrase “Pursuit of Happiness” is not patriotic?