Come on now Brad. Don't hold back anything, tell us what you really think  
about Nancy. :)
 
Rummy
 
 
In a message dated 7/17/2008 9:54:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
flybrad at gmail.com writes:

Hank,

Not only is she from California, she's from San Fransisco,  a whole different
planet.  All Nancy really cares about is her own  ass. We've been producing
oil in and off the coast of California for  decades but nearly as much as we
could.  Do you know how much oil was  spilled in the Gulf of Mexico during
Katrina?  None, nada, zip,  zero!  What's the latest from her party on
energy?  Ted Kennedy  and John Kerry want the Taunton River, lined with
industrial plants  already, declared a "scenic river" to block a liquified
natural gas plant  which some estimate would cut New England home heating
bills by as much as  15%.  What's their counter answer to that? The want to
start the  LIHEAP program, a homeowner heating assistance bill, in other
words, more  free candy!

This is not a Democratic or a Republican problem, this is a  national problem
of tremendous proportions.  If the Dems want to show  some real leadership,
throw dumbass Nancy (and I'm being really PC here)  and crooked-as-hell Harry
Reid, the biggest asshat ever to lead the Senate  under the bus and MoveOn!
The Dems have some talent, Gene Taylor from my  adopted district in
Mississippi comes to mind.

This isn't funny  anymore.  It's pathetic!

Brad




Energy  Myths

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 03, 2008  4:20 PM PT

*Oil:* With the long July Fourth weekend, you might get a  chance to see your
senator or representative. If so, you should be ready to  dispel a few myths
politicians now have about drilling for more  oil.
------------------------------

*IBD Series:* Breaking The Back  Of  High
Oil<http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series7.aspx>
------------------------------

This  is especially true of Democrats. Many in Congress seem either
disconnected  from reality or intentionally disingenuous about our energy
crunch. They  have well-honed negative responses to common-sense ideas about
solving our  energy crisis, particularly drilling for more oil.

These responses are  based on a number of widely held myths. Sadly, they've
become the backbone  of the Democrats' energy policy. They include:

*• "We can't drill our  way out of our energy crisis."*

Actually, we can. As we've noted  before, conservative estimates put the
total amount of recoverable oil in  conventional deposits at about 39 billion
barrels. Offshore, we have  another 89 billion barrels or so. In ANWR, 10
billion barrels.

In  oil shale deposits, we have more than 1 trillion barrels of oil.  In
perspective, that's about four times the total reserves of Saudi Arabia.  And
if estimates of shale reserves as high as 2 trillion barrels prove  true,
we'll have about a 300-year supply of oil just from shale. This  compares
with current estimated total U.S. oil reserves of about 21 billion  barrels.

ANWR alone is expected to yield 1 million barrels of oil a  day. Now make the
highly conservative assumption that we're able to get a  like amount of oil
from the other sources — for a total increase of 3  million to 4 million
barrels of oil a day.

That's an enormous rise  in oil output. Today, we produce just under 8
million barrels of oil a day  from domestic sources. So we could, in effect,
boost our energy output 50%,  and thus our energy independence, by bringing
an additional 4 million  barrels of oil to thirsty world markets each and
every day.

By the  way, those calculations don't include the trillions and trillions of
cubic  feet of natural gas found in the same locations, which, along with
nuclear  power, could be used to fire our power plants.

By 2030, according to  the U.S. Energy Information Administration, we will
need at least 30% more  energy to fuel our economy. Nearly 85% of that
increase will come from oil  and gas, even with expected gains for
alternative energy. Can't drill our  way out? In fact, it's the only way out
of our energy crisis.

*•  "Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of oil leases and refuse
to  drill."*

This is yet another slander of "Big Oil" by House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi — one
that has become a major talking point for Democrats in  Congress. It's
completely dishonest.

Oil companies have spent  billions of dollars for those leases. Drilling has
increased by more than  66% since 2000. They are searching for oil even as
you read this. Some  parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some
won't. But at $145 a  barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of
incentive to find  it.

That said, 68 million acres is in fact a minuscule amount. Some 94%  of
federal lands — 658 million acres — remains off-limits to  exploration.
Another 97% — or 1.7 billion acres — of federal offshore  properties likewise
remains off-limits. These lands contain tens of  billions of barrels of
recoverable oil. It's there for the taking,  now.

How much energy is there? Federal lands, according to the American  Petroleum
Institute, hold 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to  fuel 60
million households for 160 years. They hold at least 116 billion  barrels of
oil, maybe more. That's enough to fuel 65 million cars and  provide fuel oil
for 3.2 million homes for 60 years.

As such, it's  the height of irresponsibility for Congress to leave these
lands off the  table. It ensures we remain vulnerable to pariah petrostates
like  Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran and others who wish us ill.

*•  "Even if drilling works, it'll take a decade or more for the oil  to
flow."*

This is quite an argument coming from the Democratic  Party, which has made
keeping oil off the market a linchpin of its energy  policy for decades.

If President Clinton hadn't vetoed the idea of  drilling in ANWR back in
1995, we'd have that oil on the market today.  Ditto if Congress had approved
ANWR drilling in 2002, when President Bush  requested it.

Even so, the larger point is false anyway. New oil will  be flowing in some
cases within three to four years, according to industry  estimates. But the
impact on prices will be immediate. Why? Because markets  would suddenly have
to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in  oil supply. That
would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to  drop.

By the way, this isn't just conjecture. President Reagan, within  a week of
his inaugural in 1981, removed domestic controls on oil. Energy  prices began
tumbling almost immediately, with oil falling from $34 a  barrel in early
1981 to just $11 by 1986.

It worked before, and  it'll work again.

*• "Record profits by big oil companies are the  reason for soaring prices."*

It's true that oil company profits have  never been higher. But put into
perspective, oil company profits are high  because the price is high. As a
share of revenue, profits aren't so  high.

The average profit, as we've noted before, is around 8 to 9 cents  to the
dollar. That compares with about 7 cents to the dollar for  manufacturers and
more than 15 cents to the dollar for computer  makers.

In short, oil profits aren't out of whack with the rest of  industry.

What doesn't get said is that while oil companies have profit  margins of
about 8%, about 12% of the price of a gallon of gas goes to the  government
in the form of taxes. When indirect taxes are included, the  share is even
higher.

So who are the real  price-gougers?

>From 1981 to 2006, the oil industry made $867  billion in profits. Yes,
that's a lot. But over that same time, they paid  total taxes of $1.2
trillion, Energy Department data show. And that doesn't  include taxes of
$519 billion paid to foreign countries.

Please  remember that the next time a politician vows to hit "Big Oil" with  a
windfall profits tax or some other idea. The tax won't be paid by the  oil
company; it will be paid by you, the consumer.

In coming weeks,  we'll try to look at some of the other myths surrounding
America's energy.  The problem is, there are so many that dispelling the
falsehoods about  energy can become a full-time occupation for a newspaper.

In the  meantime, let us suggest that if you think more oil will help, you
should  tell your local members of Congress. They're easy to find at the
government  Web site thomas.loc.gov. The only problem is, on this topic, many
won't  want to be found.



On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Hank  <hnw555 at gmail.com> wrote:

> She's from California.   They'll elect anybody!
>
> Hank
>
>
> On  7/17/08, Rik Sandberg <sanderico1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>  > Ed,
> >
> > "that is not what Nancy P and Harry R  say"
> >
> >
> >
> > After listening to  Pelosi's blathering about releasing the strategic oil
> > reserve  this week, I have come to the conclusion that she is perhaps the
> >  stupidest woman in the country ..... perhaps the world.
> >
>  > How does someone this ignorant/shortsighted get elected?
>  >
> > Rik
> >
> > Ayn Rand was a prophet - - it  isn't my fault
> >
> >
> >
> > Tootle  wrote:
> > > Brad said, " A solution is out there somewhere and  the market will find
> > it,
> > > in the meantime, we  need more oil wells to keep the economy lubed and
> > > running  until the next generation fuel is ready.
> > >
> > >  That is not what Nancy P and Harry R say... They are intent on
>  destroying
> > > America just to stay in office.
> >  >
> > > Art must be progressive secularist since he does not  like what I say.
> > > Another fellow traveler among us.
>  > >
> > > Ed K
> > > Greenville, SC, USA
>  > > Addendum:  "Don't tell me words don't matter!" Sen. Barack  Obama
> > thundered
> > > at a Wisconsin Democratic Party  dinner in February. He should have
> > > remembered that at the  American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
> > > Policy  Conference.
> > >
> > > Then, "Mr. Obama defended the  outrageous promise he made last July to
> > meet,
> > >  during his first year as president and without precondition, with the
>  > > leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Mr.  Obama's
> > > eagerness to undertake a "World Tyrants Tour" is  both naive and
> > foolhardy,
> > > and how he dealt with  those concerns at AIPAC raises the question of
> > whether
>  > > he's done his homework." Karl Rove
> > >  http://www.nabble.com/file/p18499352/Do%2BWords%2Bhave%2BMeaning.gif
>  > > Do+Words+have+Meaning.gif
> > >
> >  __________________________________________________
> > To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>  > http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >  __________________________________________________
> >
>  __________________________________________________
> To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>  http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>  __________________________________________________
>
__________________________________________________
To  subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to  
http://www.rhodes22.org/list
__________________________________________________




**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)