Democrat's Mentally Retarded Energy Policy

Email Print posted by KenTX 04/25/2008 01:11:57 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
What happens when oil goes to $120 per barrel? Energy companies have the incentive to find and produce more oil.

Brazil just discovered a huge new subsea oil field,  one of the largest oil discoveries in history.
Energy companies are developing a massive tract in North Dakota.
Chevron is producing the Jack Field, 270 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico.

George W. Bush is promoting a single solution for America’s energy needs: START DRILLING NOW!!!!
He wants to drill in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

He wants to drill off the Virginia coast.

He wants to drill off the California Coast.

He wants to drill in the Beaufort Sea.

He wants to drill in ANWR.

He wants to drill in Utah National Parks.

What is the Democrat Party response? Obviously, they fight the Bush Administration every goddam time they try to open up drilling. In the words of Nancy Pelosi: “We cannot drill our way to energy independence.”
Really? Well look how much independence we’re going to get out of that Bakken Field in North Dakota.

“The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007, which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.”

Did you get that liberals? A single oil formation adds $18 trillion to the American economy.

If Democrats are too stupid to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, China is happy to come in and do the job.

If Democrats are too stupid to drill for oil in the Arctic, Russia is happy to come in and do the job.

But I saved the best for last. We’ve already seen that Democrats don’t want to drill for oil in America. They are not interested in the least in domestic sources of oil. So what is their solution?
They want OPEC to increase production so we can become even more dependent upon Middle East oil!
< Southern Conservative Defends Jimmy Carter | Cenk Quote of the Day -- April 24, 2008 >
 Display:
Democrat's Mentally Retarded Energy Policy | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
Thank god (none / 0)

someone finally had the courage to say it! Too bad your title is so off-putting that noone will bother to read it. I already wish I could have back the 30 seconds of my life it took me to compose this comment.

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 02:33:24 AM EST

Provocative titles (none / 0)
yield enhanced readership.

Trust me. I've been doing this for a long time.

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 02:54:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
props (none / 0)

Your title is provocative, and the post isn't bad. I think there are better ways to make titles provocotive without calling people mentally retarded.

That being said...everything I've read suggests that the price of oil is currently high because of speculation, not because of a glut in supply. True the third world demand has increased, but the resulting decrease in availability to US markets doesn't really account for the 5-fold + increase in prices. To my mind these things point to two conclusions, 1) US oil companies are not patriotic altruists and will not offer gas at a lower price just because of a moderate increase in local supply. They will continue to charge what consumers are able and willing to pay, all the while reaping record profits. 2) Development of alternative technologies is critical and in the interests of the american people. Its time for oil to enter a competetive energy marketplace. Your point is well taken that there's plenty of oil out there. But in the long run you must concede that burning it at the current rate will (at some point) cause it to run out, and also causes harm to the environment (I know that doesn't matter to you, but it is a legitimate and real negative externality).

So I just don't accept the premise that drilling in ND saves us money from propping up regimes overseas. Why should halliburton and chevron limit themselves to ND or AK when they can have Iraq too? and have someone else (you and me) pay for the procurement expense (the Iraq war)? I don't see any evidence here that increased drilling at home will lower our prices significantly. The only reason the energy sector is pushing this is because .... its good for them.

It doesn't save me or the government any money, as you claim in your post (certainly not on the order of 18 trillion dollars!). Its not good for america and it doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy in any significant way.

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 02:30:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh please, Ken (none / 0)

You would have to be retarded to think that Southeast Asian and Indian demand for oil has shot up so fast that is has caused oil prices to quintuple in five fucking years.

And that the invasion of Iraq, record profits for oil companies, OPEC being pissed at us and two guys who suck off the Saudis for a living and own millions in oil stock running our energy policy is all somehow coincidental. 

Alpha and Ken and many others know a lot more about oil than I do but dear God, anyone can see these argument are complete and total bullshit.

As if China's oil consumption wasn't increasing dramatically from 1998-2002 or 1993-1997 or any other fucking five-year period in the last two or three decades.  This is such an obvious lie I usually don't even bother to respond.  Just asinine.

Hmmm, we've destroyed our relationship with OPEC, Bush and Cheney and their friends are getting insanely rich on oil and no one can afford gas or groceries.  Conclusion?  Must be China's fault.

How can anyone take this shit seriously? 

 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 02:49:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Easy! (none / 0)
Supply:

[IMG]http://i83.photobucket .com/albums/j307/alphasigmo okie/oilwatch_crude.png[/IM G]

Demand:

[IMG]http://i83.photobucket .com/albums/j307/alphasigmo okie/chinaindia.jpg[/IMG]

Any questions?

by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 03:20:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Lets try again (none / 0)
Supply:






Demand:


by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 03:24:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
These are great (none / 0)
Now we're talking turkey. But the question at hand is whether the supply of oil (or lack thereof) accounts for the >5-fold price increase since the beginning of this decade. If you see my original post this is the question that I'm raising about Ken's assertion that increasing the availability of home-grown oil fields will translate into increased savings for the american people. I think it's indefensible, but I'm neither a sustainability expert nor an "oil man". I'm not fundamentally opposed to oil exploration, I just think our energy policy is way unbalanced. So if Ken or you or anybody can show me data that convincingly demonstrates his point, and accounts for my objection, I'm open. Of course all data is open to misinterpretation, but without it his whole argument is baseless.

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 03:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hazmat (none / 0)
Now you see how a KenTX thread works.

1. I use a provocative title to get people to read it.
2. I offer a conservative position, along with data and links and references.
3. I challenge liberals to counter the argument.
4. It forces them to think about the issue, and put some effort into formulating a response.
5. I hang back for a day or so before responding to their posts.
6. At the end of the process, the liberals have educated themselves on the issue.
7. Everybody has fun.

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 05:18:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
so long as you're lecturing me (none / 0)

here's how a hazmat thread works. If you deploy logical fallacy in the exercise of your opinion, as you did when you pointed out to us liberals that communism lies at the far left of the political spectrum (wow you're smart), say, by offering photographs of Jimmy Carter standing next to Castro at the olympics, I'm going to call you an idiot.

Its a little patronizing to suggest that you're helping out us poor sonsabitches by giving us something to "think" about that will require "effort" to formulate a response to. My general complaint with you is that you put up conservative garbage that is "effort"-lessly debunked. This current post has the redeeming quality that it contains a few facts and a statement of interpretation. Despite this, it is (as I mentioned) easily debunked. So much so that one wonders why you didn't first address the obvious point I brought up in your original post. Don't compliment yourself for doing us a service.

My libertarian and republican friends make much smarter arguments than you on a regular basis. I usually come away from a discussion with them feeling "educated" in the sense that they have contributed a conservative interpretation to the world of facts we both agree on, that I can mull over and possibly incorporate in some way. With you I just hear parroted right-wing talking points most of the time, and a bunch of news-clippings and google-image results that I'm not going to read and don't impress me.

Anyway, I'm not interested in your take on blogging ettiquette. If you're a real conservative why don't you put some effort into posting something that isn't easily debunked? You're welcome to address my substantive comment too , because if you "hang back" for a day this thread will not be visible any longer. According to Rich you're incapable of adressing anybody's original point, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Am I not merciful? 

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 06:24:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I've been saving one in the wheelhouse, just for h (none / 0)
“I'm not interested in your take on blogging etiquette.”
I’ll give you my take anyway. Here’s the short version. Whenever you’re polite, I’ll meet you halfway with polite response. By contrast, whenever you post comments like those in this thread, I don’t feel the need to hold back as much.
  
 “US oil companies are not patriotic altruists and will not offer gas at a lower price just because of a moderate increase in local supply. They will continue to charge what consumers are able and willing to pay, all the while reaping record profits.”
US oil companies will continue to charge whatever the market will bear. If the market price for West Texas Intermediate is $117/bbl, they will charge $117.

“That being said...everything I've read suggests that the price of oil is currently high because of speculation, not because of a glut (shortage) in supply.”
You’re exactly right. Think tulips.

“Development of alternative technologies is critical and in the interests of the American people. Its time for oil to enter a competitive energy marketplace.”
Alternative technologies will spontaneously appear when oil reaches $500 per bbl or $1000 per bbl. Until then, we need to do everything possible to keep America competitive in the global industrial marketplace. The objective is for America to have plenty of energy, while the rest of the world scrounges around for bare subsistence, like some Mad-Max movie. Then our economy will be more competitive than their economy. We should be running every light bulb and outlet on electricity generated from clean nuclear energy, like they already do in Japan and France. We should be figuring out how to make liquefied coal work in our gas tanks, since the U.S. has 30% of the world’s coal.

“So I just don't accept the premise that drilling in ND saves us money from propping up regimes overseas. Why should halliburton and chevron limit themselves to ND or AK when they can have Iraq too? and have someone else (you and me) pay for the procurement expense (the Iraq war)? I don't see any evidence here that increased drilling at home will lower our prices significantly. The only reason the energy sector is pushing this is because .... its good for them.”
When GM sells cars made in America, it’s a good thing. When Microsoft sells software made in America, it’s a good thing. When Boeing sells airplanes made in America, it’s a good thing. When Chevron sells gasoline, refined in America, from oil that was produced in America, it’s a good thing.
  
“It doesn't save me or the government any money, as you claim in your post (certainly not on the order of 18 trillion dollars!). Its not good for america and it doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy in any significant way.”
We have a massive trade deficit, and the primary cause is imported oil and gasoline. We are importing energy and exporting dollars. Think of oil and gasoline as “manufactured products”. We are trying to bring “manufacturing” back to America. We are creating good jobs for fellow Americans, like TYT’s very own juebawl.
How many American jobs are created by producing and refining $18 trillion worth of oil? A lot more than purchasing $36 trillion worth of imported refined gasoline.

 “Its a little patronizing to suggest that you're helping out us poor sonsabitches by giving us something to "think" about that will require "effort" to formulate a response to.”
I am helping you out, you poor son of a bitch. I’m trying to give you something to “think” about. Democrats want to prevent drilling by American oil producers anywhere near the United States. Their idea of an energy policy is to strong arm OPEC into lowering oil prices so we can send even more American dollars to regimes that support Islamic Jihadists.

“With you I just hear parroted right-wing talking points most of the time, and a bunch of news-clippings and google-image results that I'm not going to read and don't impress me.”
Why don’t you take another look at the news-clipping links, detailing the number of times that Democrats have worked to thwart and derail efforts of U.S. oil companies to drill in domestic tracts. See if that impresses you.
 
“My general complaint with you is that you put up conservative garbage that is "effort"-lessly debunked.”
Then let’s see you debunk something rather than post insults.
I’m waiting.
I’m still waiting.

"My libertarian and republican friends make much smarter arguments than you on a regular basis. I usually come away from a discussion with them feeling "educated"."
I don't know how "educated" you feel right now, but I'll bet you feel "schooled".

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 03:27:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
slight ommission (none / 0)
to the question: your graphs show a ~40% increase in demand (contrasted with 5X price increase), not accounting for the fact that this is just a fraction of world oil demand. Maybe I'm wrong about the speculation, but that's what I've heard, from financial experts I've spoken to.

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 03:42:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A word on speculation (none / 0)
Speculators are almost always short term traders.  They are just as happy to sell short as go long.  What this does is increases the volatility in a market, but very rarely the direction.  At the most I would guess that speculation adds $10-$20 to a barrel of oil.  This is not insignificant, but the underlying driver is still supply and demand. 

On the plus side speculation provides a valueable service to the market.  Speculators generally place bets in advance of events.  This can ad a risk premium (in terms of supply disruption) to the market, especially when supply and demand are tight.  This provides more incentive to increase supply above demand to reduce the risk, which is good for everyone.  It can also work in reverse where speculators can anticipate a glut of supply or decrease in demand before it hits the market and drive down prices.  This has the fuction of proping up demand. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 07:16:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From what I can tell (none / 0)

You show a 40% increase in demand and an 8% increase in supply. For simplicity's sake lets call this an increase in net demand of 1/3.  Now I can see how that gets us from $30 a barrel to $40 a barrel.  Now how do we account for the other $80 a barrel?

If you are telling me that China and India have raised it $10 and "other increases in demand" have raised it $80 I am gonna suggest we just leave China and India out of the conversation. 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 04:12:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yet Another Econ Lesson (none / 0)
Rich and Haz allow me to introduce to you the concept of elasticity of demand. 

Lets start from the beginning...

I think you guys are starting to understand the basics of supply and demand.  Now, lets focus on what happens when supply does not meet demand.  We all know that leads to higher prices, but how?  Lets do a simple example:

Lets say commodity A currently costs $100

Current supply is 85
Current demand is 87

For the market to be balanced demand must match supply.  That means we have to convince enough people who want to use commodity A to drop demand by 2.  How do we do that in a market economy...Prices!  (the alternative aproach is rationing in which the government decides who gets to use what).

Now if commodity A is something that no one really likes anyway, lets say spinach, or is easily substitutable for commodity B then convincing people to stop using it is easy and price may only rise do say $102.  In this case demand is refered to as "elastic" as it changes easily to changes in price. 

However if the entire world economy is dependent upon commodity A and there is no viable large scale substitute for it, then convincing people to go without is rather difficult.  In this case you are asking people to give up driving to work, growing food, running their business, or taking their traditional annual family vacation to grandma's house.  All of these things are very valuable to people, so a small increase in the price will not convince them to stop.  In this case the price must rise significantly such that the "pain threshold" of higher prices exceeds the value of the service delivered (having a job, eating, making a profit, or visiting family).  It might take a price of $120 or even $150 to decrease demand by 2.  This is called "Inelastic" demand.


As a fun thought experiment is to ask yourself how high oil prices would have to rise for you to sell your house in the suburbs, rent an apartment near your place of employment and ride a bicycle or take the bus to work every day?  The answer to this question will give you an idea of your elasticity of demand.  Each person has different thresholds of course. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 07:04:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
finally (none / 0)

someone around here is talking sense. And unless I'm mistaken, Ken's oil drilling project isn't going to solve the problem in the long term. The total oil production graph you presented above in the thread appears to be leveled off. On news reports (I can't cite a date sorry, but I watch Lehrer) they say that OPEC is refining at max capacity.

So you need a model that predicts the marginal effect of increasing oil supply on prices given that the price of oil is (assumed to be) inelastic. If the amount of oil in our reserves has the potential to create the desired effect when harvested (here's a question--when will the government be satisfied that prices are low enough?!!), how long will that buy us before we feel the prices are too high again? Can we assume demand in the 3rd world remains static (obviously not)?

And, just as pertinent, will it prevent the oil barons in the white house from nuking Iran?

And can anyone tell me if Cheney thinks the russians are going to sit by passively while we waltz into the Caspian Sea?

Is any of this worth it? Or is it time to start thinking about alternatives?

by hazmat on 04/25/2008 07:33:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My problem with this "plan" (none / 0)
As is typical with Republican ideas, it is an "either-or" proposition rather than a "both-and."

Why are they not exploiting nuclear power (and getting rid of our ridiculous anti-reprocessing regulations) and heavily investing in renewables at the same time as they clamor for more drilling for oil?

Why do I want this to happen?

Because maybe then we'd actually SELL something to someone again other than services.

by jarett on 04/25/2008 02:48:25 AM EST

Bush already invested heavily in renewables. (none / 0)
That corn-in-the-gas-tank nonsense was a multi-trillion dollar payoff to the agriculture red states. What an absolute load of crap that was!

Jarett, you're smarter than this.

Nuclear? yes!

Oil? yes!

Coal? yes!

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 02:58:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Red herring for red states (none / 0)
YOU'RE smarter than this, too.  We all know corn-based ethanol to appeal to the corn lobby is a waste of time.  There are other renewables here right now like algal biodiesel, solar thermal plants, wind, etc. that can make a huge dent in our energy needs as well as creating a whole new green energy economy.

Where's the investment and leadership from Congress (yes, I blame Democrats for this too, but it's certainly not solely their fault)?  The White House?

Nowhere, that's where.

by jarett on 04/25/2008 06:04:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Honest Question Ken (none / 0)
Ken I am truely starting to question your credentails as an oil man (or maybe it was just that SEC education?).  

In reality I know you don't believe a word of what you just spewed, but that's not the point is it?  You're just trying to make a point and hoping no one is smart enough to know you're full of shit.  

I just have one question for you on this post...

Do you honestly believe that even if oil prices were fixed at $120/barrel or higher and all environmental and political barriers to drilling were removed that the US could acheive even our 1970's peak production of ~10mbpd for an extended period of time, let alone meeting our current demand of 20+mbpd? 


If you don't want to reveal your true opinions to the board please feel free to send your answer in a private message.  I want as honest an answer as you can possibly give. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 03:57:18 AM EST

You want an honest reply? (none / 1)
High oil prices have always spurred significantly enhanced conservation, exploration, and production, resulting in dramatic decreases in oil prices.

The only factor that can alter the traditional boom & bust cycle in the petroleum market is if the planet is running out of oil, and the demand curve has exceeded the supply curve for the rest of time. I don’t know if this is true, and neither do you.

You’ve placed a large personal bet by moving to AZ in pursuit of a doctorate in sustainability. As a result, you’ve completely lost your objectivity on the issue. You’re like one of those researchers who receives big government grants to study global warming. If man made climate change is proven to be simply another giant Y2K hoax, there will be a lot of worthless scientists looking for real jobs.

Similarly, if oil producers start bringing in massive production tracts, you are screwed!

You didn’t believe me until Florida kicked Ohio State’s ass.

You didn’t believe me until LSU kicked Ohio State’s ass.

I guess you won’t believe me until the oil companies kick your ass.

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 06:58:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken and the truth (none / 0)
It is true that the SEC owns Ohio State.

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 09:37:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX Predictions (none / 0)
1. I said that Florida would destroy Ohio State.

2. I said that LSU would destroy Ohio State.

So let's take a look at Ohio State's record against SEC teams in bowl games played in their storied past.
0-9

ass whuppin!

by KenTX on 04/25/2008 05:23:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

What SEC team are you beholden to?  And where do you stand on the whole Texas-A&M-OU hate traingle.

For my part I am an Orangeblood (Texas fan) and partial to LSU in matters in the East. 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 05:46:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My college football teams (none / 0)
I love UT, and I too am an Orangeblood.

University of Texas (burnt orange)
University of Tennessee (Tennessee orange)

I hold more than one degree from UT, (Tennessee) and I walked on as a human blocking dummy.

When I played halfback in junior high in El Campo, I thought I was Jim Bertleson. (I wanted a tear away jersey.)

When I played wide receiver in high school in Tennessee, I thought I was Cotton Speyer.

If UT ever plays UT in the National Championship, I will be there, and I will cheer for UT (both of them). I hope Texas beats Tennessee after f ive overtimes.

As for Texas, OU, A&M, I like all three teams in that order.

I became a Texas fan when I was in the second grade, living in Norman, OK. When the coaches were guys like these, you can't help but like both teams.
bud and darell

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 01:23:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Redneck Nation (none / 0)
There’s a good way to compare regional dominance in college football. As long as southern teams are winning college national championships, I'm a happy guy.

Here’s a trivia question.
 
How many NCAA National Championships have been won by teams from these seven Deep South states (Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama) in the last fifty years?

2007
LSU
2006
Florida
2005
Texas
2003
LSU
2001
Miami  
2000
Oklahoma
1999
Florida State
1998
Tennessee
1996
Florida
1993
Florida State
1992
Alabama
1991
Miami
1989
Miami
1987
Miami
1985
Oklahoma
1983
Miami
1981
Clemson
1980
Georgia
1979
Alabama
1978
Alabama
1975
Oklahoma
1974
Oklahoma
1969
Texas
1965
Alabama
1964
Alabama
1963
Texas
1961
Alabama
1958
LSU
1957
Auburn
1956
Oklahoma
1955
Oklahoma

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 01:34:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken the front runner... (none / 0)
As for Texas, OU, A&M, I like all three teams in that order

Ken, is there any team south of the mason dixon line you don't root for?  Should we add FSU, Clemson, NC, Duke, WF and GaTech to the growing list of team you like?  Must make Saturday afternoons a much happier time, you never have to deal with the misery that Jarret deals with every week and I have to deal with once a season. 

BTW like it or not the USC - OSU game will decide the first spot in the NC game this year...the winner will wait for the SEC to battle it out.  Of course the other option would be OK taking the second spot after winning the big 12.  Then we would have the losers of 4 of the last 5 championship games...s omething would have to give...

by alphasigmookie on 04/26/2008 02:04:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mookie, I can't help it! (none / 0)
I've lived in

Knoxville (UT)
Baton Rouge (LSU)
Norman (OU)
Atlanta (UGa)
Nashville (Vandy)
Memphis (UM)
Dallas (SMU)

I have visited every other city where there is an SEC or (old-SWC) school. 

I love all southern teams, and I hate all northern teams. Life is very easy for me.

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 02:24:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
good news, bad news for Mookie (none / 0)
The good news for Mookie is that NCAA football will have a playoff system in the not-too-distant future, and Ohio State will make the playoffs every year until the end of time.

The bad news for Mookie is that after implementation of a playoff system, Ohio State will never again make it to the national championship game until the end of time.

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 03:43:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not so fast (none / 0)

USC has to get past Stanford.

And they get to travel to Palo Alto this year.  Yikes!!!

:-) 

by ProfRich on 04/26/2008 09:39:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Trivia (none / 0)
Which one of those guys in the picture played at OU?

by ProfRich on 04/26/2008 09:41:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Brief Darrell bio (none / 0)
It is said of Darrell Royal that "he became what he is by remembering where he came from."


He came from the far southwest corner of Oklahoma, Dust Bowl country. His mother died when he was three months old.
As a kid, he picked cotton and shined shoes for 10 cents an hour. When he was 17, his dad loaded up the car and they joined the procession of "Okies" headed to California to find work. ("We must have had 20 flats," he once recalled). In California, he got a job picking fruit, but when football started, he asked the coach at the local high school if he could get a uniform. The coach told him he was too small to play on the varsity, and even though young Royal begged for a chance to try out for the big team, the coach told him it was a hard-and-fast rule. So Darrell got his dad's permission to hitch-hike back to Oklahoma where he could live with his grandma and play football.

Once back in Hollis, he played football. But every day after practice, he headed for the local Ford dealership, where he spent most of the evening sweeping the floors for 25 cents an hour. Saturdays he shined shoes at the barber shop.

And he led his team to an undefeated season and a state championship, earning all-state honors as well.

And in the process, he met Edith Thomason, "the only girl that I ever cared about." She lived in nearby Gould.

Following graduation, he entered the Army Air Corps, but never flew a combat mission. Only years later did he run into his commanding officer, and find out that he was so spared hazardous duty because he was considered "essential" - to the base football team.
After the service, he and Edith married, and knowing that he wanted to become a coach, he set out to find a place to play football. Edith recalled the time he visited Tennessee, and when he was late returning, she called there, concerned. She was told, "we gave him enough money to come home on, but we think he's hitch-hiking." He wound up visiting so many schools and doing the same thing - pocketing the expense money and hitch-hiking home, that "when he got home he had enough money to buy us an old car."

He finally decided on the University of Oklahoma, where he played under the great Bud Wilkinson. At OU, he set records for punting, passing, punt returns and interceptions. Many of them lasted for 50 years.

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 03:30:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude! (none / 0)
You stopped right when it was about to get good!!!

by ProfRich on 04/26/2008 04:16:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen! (none / 0)
We Irish heartily approve of anyone who pwns "The" Ohio State University.

Also we killed them in hockey, only to lose the NCAA championship against FUCKING BC.

I hope to God we regroup this year and hand the Eagles their asses in Boston.

I thought our schedule was looking pretty weak this year, but on second thought maybe not.

SDSU (lol)
Michigan
@ Michigan State
Purdue
Stanford (lol)
@ UNC (lol)
@ Washington
Pitt (lol)
@ BC
Navy
Syracuse (lol)
USC

Sure, five lols, but five serious teams and two guys who might give us some actual trouble too.

I think we can at least break even this year, but I'm not sure beyond that.

by jarett on 04/25/2008 09:03:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No offense, Jarret (none / 0)

But God how I hate Notre Dame.

Wasn't it awesome seeing about 43% of all college football coverage last year about whether or not some awful team in Indian could avoid losing ten games? (They didn't avoid it) 

by ProfRich on 04/26/2008 12:00:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Game #1 - SDSU (none / 0)
THE Aztecs are gonna thrash ND this year - The beginnings of another great season of Irish Football!!!!!

Take that you ratings whores at NBC!!!!

:)

by bobo1 on 04/26/2008 12:46:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"until the oil companies kick your ass" (none / 0)
UNTIL?????????????????????? ????

by MedfordTim on 04/25/2008 11:57:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
You’ve placed a large personal bet by moving to AZ in pursuit of a doctorate in sustainability.

We all take risks (at least those of us that suceed).  If people like me are sucessful and manage to solve all of humanities large environmental and social challenges (climate change, fresh water avaliablity, resource depletion, how to feed 6.5 soon to be 9 billion people and provide energy for them all....) then I guess I'll probably be out of a job and i'll have to go work for dial making soap or hostess making twinkees. 

As a result, you’ve completely lost your objectivity on the issue.

This from a man who's entire career depends upon their being oil in the ground to drill and a market to sell it to.  Nice to meet you pot, you're looking espicially black today.   

The only factor that can alter the traditional boom & bust cycle in the petroleum market is if the planet is running out of oil, and the demand curve has exceeded the supply curve for the rest of time. I don’t know if this is true, and neither do you.

You are correct.  You can never be certain when attempting to predict the future.  The difference is I know that I will be right eventually, even if its not this time.  Attempting to look at the data objectively (as much as is possible) I find that the geological, political, technological and economic challenges of maintaining a high rate of growth in oil production will be extremely difficult.  If we start to see significant growth of 1-2mbpd over the next year or two in response to high prices I might start to become less pessimistic.  Until then I'm going to keep riding my bike and investing in oil and alternative energy stocks. 

by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 12:26:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
find some better sources Ken (none / 0)
All quotes from the linked articles...

Jack field:
"Authors Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith say the giant find validates the key thesis of their book, "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," that oil did not come from the remains of ancient plant and animal life but is made naturally by the Earth. "

Bristol Bay
development would bring in less than $8 billion once all the energy was tapped while undermining a fishing industry that brings in $2 billion a year.

Brazil
"Analysts Mark Flannery of Credit Suisse Group and Gustavo Gattass of UBS AG challenge the estimate for Carioca. Lima, the Brazilian oil agency director, later attributed the figure to a magazine.
Flannery told clients during an April 16 conference call that 600 million barrels is a ``reasonable'' estimate and suggested Lima may have been referring to the entire geologic formation to which Carioca belongs.

Technology needed to tap fields like Tupi, which sit hundreds of miles offshore beneath thousands of feet of rock, sand and salt, hasn't been developed

North Dakota


"In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana"

What did their survey say?


Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil (These numbers are "technically recoverable oil not necessarily economically recoverable)

A far cry from 200-400 Billion isn't it?


http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/200 8/3021/pdf/FS08-3021_508.pd f

It gets better of course

"Per-well Bakken production peaked in August 2005 at 116 barrels a day, and was down to 79 barrels a day in October 2007. "

http://www.theoildrum.com/n ode/3868#more

How much to those fancy horizontal wells Juebawl is drilling cost?  Did you buy EOG yet?


by alphasigmookie on 04/25/2008 04:21:54 AM EST

The Spining Wheel Goes Round and Round (none / 0)


That aside, there are lies, damn lies and in this case, Kens rehashed old bromides and flip flops with little or no basis in reality.

The third step toward making America less dependent on foreign oil is to develop new alternatives to gasoline and diesel. George W Bush

The REPUBLICAN Bush administration had 6 years with Republican majority to produce a coherent energy policy.

The energy policy produced?

NADA , bumpkiss, nothing.

 The REPUBLICAN Bush administration had 6 years with Republican majority to drill, drill, drill.

What happened? Bush and the Republican majority caved to Republican Governors led by his brother Jeb concerned about environmental impact on their states. Drilling? Result? 

NADA , bumpkiss, nothing.

The REPUBLICAN Bush administration had 6 years with Republican majority to encourage energy production.

What was done? we gave energy companies BILLIONS in tax subsidies for exploration and research. What did we get :

NADA , bumpkiss, nothing.

The REPUBLICAN Bush administration had 6 years with Republican majority to encourage market forces they are so keen on to produce more energy. You know,  competition and all that jazz.

What did we get with so called "free market" in energy?   The same guys (R) that brought you ENRON and manipulating the power grid are now busily at work in manipulating gasoline and crude oil prices.

So now that gasoline stocks in the US are in surplus where does the price go? UP! 

 So one would ask if this is true that the Bakken Field..

 Well look how much independence we’re going to get out of that Bakken Field in North Dakota.

You know, the one that has been a huge find for 20 years now.

Did you get that liberals? A single oil  formation adds $18 trillion to the American economy

 

Then , with all that oil we have...why are oil prices continuing to rise on supply concerns?

 

SO, What is the REAL energy policy of the US?

What happens when oil goes to $120 per barrel? Energy companies have the incentive to find and produce more oil. KenTx

Isn't that what conservative faith in market forces  all about?

by MRFred on 04/25/2008 10:24:10 AM EST

Vive KenTX! (none / 0)
France uses a lot of nuclear power. KenTX wants to increase the use of nuclear power.  KenTX is just a France lover, like Jean Francois Kerry was. He wants to do everything France does.  Not very American.

David

(I apologize for writing a stupid, obnoxious post in an otherwise semi-serious thread.  Furthermore, I'm just busting on KenTX, because I'm not necessarily "against" nuclear power.  KenTX is just like Hillary. No matter how many times MrFred and others knock him down, he keeps getting up off the mat.)

by yturks on 04/25/2008 01:25:37 PM EST

Worthy cause (none / 0)

I apologize for writing a stupid, obnoxious post in an otherwise semi-serious thread.  Furthermore, I'm just busting on KenTX

I support you 100%. 

by OneHitKill on 04/25/2008 01:27:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I suspect (none / 0)

Ken has some French in him.

Of course, by this I mean he is gay and has a Frenchman's penis in him.

Just wanted to make that clear.

What were you saying about an "obnoxious post" in a semi-serious thread, Dave? 

by ProfRich on 04/25/2008 01:56:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now Prof... (none / 0)

thats not nice and its homophobic. Shame on you.

Besides, we all know that Ken would never accept  a French penis. Please.

by MRFred on 04/25/2008 10:34:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a question. (none / 0)
Why do liberals hate gay people?

by KenTX on 04/26/2008 01:25:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have an answer (none / 0)

Gay? Nay! You dont say!Liberals don't hate all gay people, just you.

See, simple.

Why do you deny your heritage? Embrace your closet gayness, adopt liberalness! Free yourself Ken! Give up your hate...

Ive got an idea. Show your fellow Repugs how to be green. Adapt your own personal energy policy...stop using petroleum jelly, go organic!

by MRFred on 04/26/2008 09:27:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold Up (none / 0)
I never, ever implied that the fact you are having gay sex with a Frenchman was bad.  I just said it was happening.  You decided that the simple statement of its existence was an attack.  Who is the bigot?  think about it.

by ProfRich on 04/26/2008 09:40:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrat's Mentally Retarded Energy Policy | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: