loco

If Lies Were Oil, We’d Have A Gusher

Read these 3 snippets (and the full articles). Note that in the first piece, Mathis engages in a classic attack on the motives of his enemies. I am not simply a citizen with a different and equally valuable opinion, I am a radical obstructionist and a liar feigning concern for the environment. Thanks, Mark. No one would suggest the same of an oil industry guy like you.

Of course, it takes an economics professor to really screw up the discussion. In the second piece, Gisser seems to support but dislike higher prices that aren’t as high as we think they are. He supports a tariff that keeps the price per barrel high (a widely accepted idea, even among “hands-off” conservatives) but opposes current tariffs that keep the price higher.

Both Gisser and Mathis emphasize the part of the problem is bad people like me won’t allow oil refineries in our back yards. And yet, it was an oil company that shut down a successful oil refinery in California for no apparent reason (other than the all-ruling bottom line). Read the previous entry for some of the evidence that the oil industry itself crushed independent refineries to control the market. It’s not NIMBY, it’s NIMBP — Not In My Back Pocket.

Both Gisser and Mathis believe ANWR will solve everything, an astonishingly nutty idea. Leave aside that a deal was made ages ago to sacrifice part of Alaska and preserve a tinier part. Leave aside what this says about people willing to betray earlier agreements. Just consider how long it would take ANWR oil to reach market and its tiny impact. This can be boiled down to a longish bumpersticker: We Will NOT Drill Our Way Out of This Problem. mjh

ABQjournal: Looming Crisis Eclipses 575 Debate By Mark Mathis, Executive director, Citizens‘ Alliance for Responsible Energy [Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy’s membership includes New Mexico oil and gas producers.]

I’m focused on educating the public about an issue that affects every aspect of our daily lives: the need to guarantee America’s energy supply. Without abundant, affordable energy, our high quality of life will quickly decline. And yet, just like the battle over the 505, many politicians are not looking out for your best interests.

Oil prices have climbed above $70 a barrel, but Congress will not allow oil companies to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Congressional members voting “no” on ANWR understand that this vast oilfield could give us one million barrels of crude a day for 20 to 30 years. They know only a tiny portion of the refuge will be disturbed (the equivalent of one letter on this page), and that caribou populations at nearby Prudhoe Bay have quintupled since production began there. However, these nonleaders say “Nay” to ANWR because they are controlled by radical activist groups who spend enormous amounts of money supporting those who vote for their agenda while attacking those who don’t.

These same congressional obstructionists have voted to maintain a ban on oil and natural gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that’s been off limits for 25 years. Meanwhile, Cuba is exploring for oil and gas just 45 miles from American beaches. Opponents of drilling feign concern over disrupted views and environmental danger. Of course, they know you can’t see a drilling rig three to 200 miles from the shoreline and that oil rigs in the Gulf took all Hurricane Katrina could dish out without a single spill.

Because of congressional inaction, nuclear power is still on the back burner, new refineries for gasoline can’t get built, onshore drilling is delayed or denied and Canadian companies drill for natural gas in the Great Lakes while the American region remains off limits. All the while your energy costs keep rising.

ABQjournal: Hysteria Over High Gas Prices Is Pumped Up By Micha Gisser, of the Rio Grande Foundation, professor emeritus of economics, University of New Mexico, and a senior fellow, Rio Grande Foundation. [mjh: The Rio Grande Foundation is a “think” tank located in a booth under the picture of John Wayne at the Frontier.]

Surprisingly, today our economy is robust despite the spike in oil prices. There are two reasons for this: First, at a price of $1.50 a gallon, due to personal income growth and increased automobile efficiency, the percentage of average household income spent on gasoline fell from 4.5 percent in 1971 to 3.1 percent in 2001.

Second, President Bush’s tax cut in May of 2003, supported by accommodating monetary policy, gave the economy a huge boost that easily swamped the impact of rising gasoline prices. Politicians who advocate restoring taxes to their pre-May 2003 level should think again.

The present spike in gasoline prices— surprise, surprise— occurred because supply and demand for a change have not been going hand-in-hand. Demand for oil has intensified since the economies of China and India have at long last taken off. But the growth in oil supply slowed down considerably in the wake of Katrina and Rita [mjh: in spite of those flawless oil rigs Mathis sings the praises of?], the instability in the Middle East [mjh: which our inept leadership contributes to] and in response to the new ethanol legislation fiasco. That policy forced oil companies to shoulder the distorting 54-cent a gallon tariff to protect ethanol producers.

In the short term Congress could alleviate the market pressures by rescinding the ethanol tariff, abolishing— or at least relaxing— the “boutique” regulations that hinder gasoline mobility across the United States, and doing something about the NIMBY (not in my backyard) activists who are responsible for the freeze in the number of oil refineries.

ABQjournal: More Wells a Drop in Bucket of Energy Woes By Stephen Capra, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

For the past year many people have watched with frustration as the energy crisis has come to engulf America. We all knew it was coming; it’s just that we have a President that chose to ignore the warnings and continues to blame conservationists and any rational person who has challenged his oil-based policies.

America burns 10,000 gallons of oil per second. We possess only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, and 2.9 percent of the world’s natural gas reserves, yet we are producing them at a much faster rate than many Mid-East countries, meaning we will be more vulnerable to shortages sooner, according to reports from British Petroleum.

The Gulf region in the Mid-East provides 24 percent of our oil. …

Here in the Rocky Mountain West, oil and gas development has spread like wildfire. Drill rigs are entering residential neighborhoods, bordering National Parks, sprouting up in National Monuments and threatening some of our wildest remaining public lands, yet we are now paying more than ever to heat our homes and drive our cars. It seems abundantly clear that oil is not the answer to our energy needs.

For the past six years President Bush and Congress have given the oil and gas industry everything they want on a silver platter. From the Enron debacle, to opening up vast tracts of public lands, to giving billions in tax cuts and royalty relief to an industry that is raking in record profits, while destroying our precious groundwater, wildlife habitat and our most important gift to future generations— our land. While top executives walk away with golden parachutes, those on fixed incomes struggle to stay warm in winter or cool in summer, and driving is slowly becoming a privilege of the wealthy. This president and Congress should be held accountable for failing miserably to protect the economic, environmental and national security interests of our country by allowing the big oil lobby to control domestic energy policy. …

The industry stump speech continues to be we need all types of energy, including alternative sources. But when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, industry, with a few exceptions, continues to put its effort into drilling and its money into lobbying for more access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Otero Mesa, Valle Vidal and any place that can put money in their coffers.

The question is how do we solve the problem? First, I think we can all agree there are no simple solutions. Oil in the short-term will clearly continue to be part of the energy matrix. Where conservationists and the oil industry differ is in approach. It is imperative that drilling of our wildest public lands be stopped. It’s simply not going to make a meaningful difference in the supply or price of oil or gas that we have in America. If we drilled in the Arctic Refuge today it would take more than 10 years for that oil to reach the market and would reduce the price at the pump by 1 cent per gallon in 20 years, when it finally reached peak production, according to the Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Department of Energy. With the price of oil being set by the world market, Refuge oil would be a drop in the bucket.

When we say no to the oil and gas industry, we force change….

More than 95 percent of our public lands are open today to drilling. The conservation community is battling to save the last 5 percent. Oil is not the answer. We must be bold and imaginative in developing alternative sources of energy. We must begin by saying no to the Bush energy policies and yes to sanity.

[updated 6/27/06 to add two other responses to Mark Mathis’ piece…]
Continue reading If Lies Were Oil, We’d Have A Gusher →

NADA - New American Dark Ages

Refinery Capacity in the Hands of the Oil Industry, Not Environmentalists

NOW. Transcript. November 11, 2005 | PBS

JAMIE COURT: Oil companies have manipulated supply so that when there’s– gonna be a peak season of demand, they then withhold supply. And when there aren’t adequate inventories, the system is rigged for a shortage, even though it’s artificial.

MARIA HINOJOSA: You’re using these terms “rigged,” “control,” I mean, these are not terms that most people kind of accept in a free market society.

JAMIE COURT: Well, I think the only thing free about this market for oil companies in the United States of America is they’re free to do whatever they want. That’s the market.

MARIA HINOJOSA: After crude is drilled from the ground, it needs to be refined — turned into gasoline, diesel or home heating oil.

But since the peak in 1981, more than half of the refineries that used to operate in the U.S. have been shut down. And that, charge critics, has been part of an industry strategy going back years. …

SEN. RON WYDEN: There is no doubt that during the 1990s, if you just look at the oil companies’ own internal documents, that yes, in fact, what they did is look at how to limit production in order to boost their profits — not my words — the words of the oil industry.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Oregon’s senator Ron Wyden … who’s been following this issue for years … is referring to internal industry documents that came to light during Congressional investigations and court cases.

One example, a Chevron memo from 1995, which included this warning from an energy analyst … “if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins …”

That’s margins, as in profit margins. …

MARIA HINOJOSA: Now, refineries have been faced with tough environmental rules and community opposition — forcing many to close — or making it difficult to open new ones. But critics charge, the oil companies themselves play a role in this too.

Look what happened two years ago in Bakersfield, California.

Shell Oil, one of the industry’s biggest companies, had recently taken this refinery over. Some 400 people worked here and business seemed to be going strong.

It was “one of the few Shell U.S. refineries to turn a profit” according to this company memo, which praised the “world-class performance” of the employees there.

One of them was this man who asked us to hide his identity. He believes Shell wanted to tighten the supply of gasoline and diesel in California and that the company intended to close this refinery down in order to do that.

MARIA HINOJOSA: So just over a year after Shell buys the refinery, Shell is now telling its employees that they wanna sell the refinery?

WHISTLE BLOWER: No, that they wanna demolish the refinery.

MARIA HINOJOSA: They wanna get rid of it entirely?

WHISTLE BLOWER: Yes, correct. They would shut it down and demolish it. …

MARIA HINOJOSA: Shell continues to insist it did not make economic sense for the refinery to stay open. After the release of those documents, critics fought to keep Bakersfield running and Shell ended up selling the facility to a competitor earlier this year.

JAMIE COURT:The reason we’ve seen these price spikes — the reason we’ve seen the profit margins go up, is because a small number of oil companies have been able to consolidate and take control of this market. Independent refiners, if they still existed, wouldn’t allow this to happen because they would fill gaps in the market.

MARIA HINOJOSA: Two decades ago, a quarter of American refining was done by independents. But since then, many of those have shut down, refineries like Powerine, a small operation in Southern California.

It wanted to re-open after a temporary closure but that didn’t sit well with oil giant Mobil, which worried that if Powerine resumed production, gas prices would drop.

That would be good for consumers but bad for Mobil. In internal company emails, a Mobil manager wrote: “Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down. Full court press is warranted in this case …”
—–

Bloomberg.com: U.S.
U.S. Probing Plan to Shut Shell California Refinery (Update3)

July 7, 2004 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating possible antitrust violations related to the planned closure of a Royal Dutch/Shell Group refinery in California, which has the highest gasoline prices in the continental U.S.

Recent Press Release from Barbara Boxer, US Senator from California

Boxer said, “In the electricity crisis that hit California, we learned all too well that special economic interests had manipulated supplies and caused great harm to consumers. Let us not allow California to be hit again with this kind of manipulation.”

Bakersfield, California refinery – Google Search

Dump Duhbya

With ineptitude on full display, the party’s over for Republicans

With ineptitude on full display, the party’s over for Republicans – baltimoresun.com By Garrison Keillor

People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don’t point to the speck in your neighbor’s eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own.

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of Nancy Pelosi in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? …

Running against Ms. Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large shambling galoot who is speaker now, Tom DeLay’s enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches.

For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has no apparent vision beyond the urge to hang onto power. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas. …

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, “Wrong son. Should’ve tried the smart one.”

This one’s eyes don’t quite focus. Five years in office and he doesn’t have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to Tony Blair at a press conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans. …

So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the GOP can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

Dump Duhbya

Can Gay Marriage Help GOP?

We can take some comfort in how quickly the recent push against gay marriage died. You see in the process the declining power of the Religious Radical Right. I believe this ‘get out the base’ tactic will fail this fall after succeeding so well in 2004. Be sure to note the conservative argument FOR gay marriage below. mjh

Bush Re-Enters Gay Marriage Fight By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, [Bush] is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base. …

In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Rep. Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: “Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this country on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals.” [mjh: while they wage war on Christmas and burn the flag!] …

In 2004, 63 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 30 percent approved. In March, 51 percent opposed it and 39 percent supported it. [mjh: more of that Bush magic; in 3 years, 100% will support anything he opposes]

Can Gay Marriage Help GOP? By Debra Rosenberg, Newsweek

Bush himself had been mostly mum on gay marriage since his re-election. But now, with his poll numbers in a nose dive and even his most enthusiastic supporters grousing, Bush took up the cause in his radio address Saturday; an amendment is needed because “activist courts have left our nation with no other choice,” he explained. …

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president’s moral radar. “I think it was purely political. I don’t think he gives a s–t about it. He never talks about this stuff,” said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage.
—–

[mjh: David Brooks, conservative, wrote the following November 22, 2003.]

Op-Ed Columnist: The Power of Marriage By DAVID BROOKS, NYTimes

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. …

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. …

It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage.

mjh’s blog — ‘Where in the Bible…?’

mjh’s blog — Expanding Freedom

my favs

Shake off your stupor

In the long run, Americans favor more freedom, not less. Denying rights

goes against America’s self-image. Even many conservatives are leery of amending the Constitution. Prohibition was the last time we

amended the Constitution to restrict rights and freedom; you know how well that turned out.

There is absolutely no doubt that one

day, gays and lesbians will be free to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. No doubt.

Before that day comes,

there will be a battle with people who have no hesitation in denying countless Americans a whole host of rights. Ironically, these people

call themselves conservatives, though they are all about radical change. This is just one bar in the cage they are building around

America. They are our jihadists, our taliban, fanatic followers of the one true word of god (as they see it). Not content to live and let

live, not able to do unto others as they would have done onto them, the Radical Right will destroy this village to save it. We cannot

allow that.

After they attempt a constitutional amendment to dictate who has the state’s blessing in declaring their love, the

Radical Right will move on to an amendment denying women control over their own bodies and their families. Then, an amendment to allow

Arnold Schwartzeneggar to become president (after Jeb Bush, perhaps).

We must stop this. But, if we fail, the pendulum will swing

and some of these changes will be undone (some things are already ruined forever). That’s assuming we haven’t all become slack-jawed

bible thumping reality TV watching apathetic illiterates in the meantime. Who benefits from ignorance? Who benefits from apathy or

despair? Who benefits from passivity? The Powers-that-be. Shake off your stupor and fight back! mjh

mjh’s blog —

Expanding Freedom

media

I Never Call It The Albuquerque Urinal, But Now I’m Pissed

3 Comments

As you may know, Bernalillo County’s Probate Judge, Merri Rudd (y mi esposa) was unopposed in the Democratic Primary yesterday and also is unopposed in the General Election in November. So, she won back in March on Filing Day but for the need for one vote yesterday. Still, some might want to know she received 25,737 votes, more than any other judge or county position in Bernalillo. More than Gary King or Jim Baca or any candidate other than the top state-wide offices (within Bernalillo County) — 10,000+ votes more than Heather Wilson. Bernalillo County, New Mexico, USA – Unofficial Election Results

You won’t know this from the Albuquerque Journal (or local TV news). Intrepid journalist Dan McKay, who Merri introduced me to in the neighborhood grocery store, studiously ignores the office of Probate Judge and Merri Rudd. McKay has written many, many articles on Bernalillo politics and elections. Only once have I seen him mention the office or the office holder, and that may have been the last time I chastised him for his negligence.

Does the office of Probate Judge matter less than dog-catcher (sorry, under the new HEART ordinance, that’s “Dog-Human Interface Facilitator”)? There are only 5 elected county positions mandated by the state constitution; Probate Judge is one of these. Constitutionally, the office is as “important” as sheriff.

“Aw, come on, she was unopposed.” That, in itself, may have been news. But note that Michael Brasher is in a similar position and got a paragraph explaining that (and 4,855 votes). Somehow, the Journal can’t spare a sentence for one of the top vote-getters in the county. What else are they overlooking/under-reporting? mjh

PS: my friends at the Journal might warn McKay to watch out for me at the grocery store — I may slip something embarrassing or expensive in his basket.

Update at 1:17pm: after my venting, Merri notes that none of the judges races seem to have merited coverage in McKay’s article. So, rather then being the only county official ignored, she’s one of many judges. So much fairer.

[See mjh’s blog — The Thrill of Victory]

The Atheist's Pulpit

Have A Damn Fine Day!

photo by MRuddIt must be the End-Times: the devil is stomping around Artesia this very moment.

New Mexicans will recall we used to have a state highway numbered ‘666’. Ah, but primitive superstition was too much for some. So, we spent public money changing the number to appease them. Church trumps State again, as ignorance does reason. mjh

[mjh: the following is a good in-depth article on the history of this lunacy.]

A Date With Destiny or Just Another Day? By K. Connie Kang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

As for associating Satan with 666 and the antichrist, that’s the result of Christian authors writing about Satan so much, said J. Gordon Melton, a Methodist minister based in Santa Barbara and author of the “Encyclopedia of American Religions.”

“Satanism is itself largely a product of Christian paranoia,” Melton said.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The Nick of time By Stephen Tomkins

Vexen Crabtree, the Minister of the London Church of Satan, plans to go to one of the alternative clubs that are celebrating 06/06/06. “My official take on it is that 666 is really only a Christian number,” he explains. “But any excuse for a party is a good one.” …

The book “Is George Bush The Antichrist?” was published in 2004 in the US. The answer was yes, showing all kinds of ways of doing the maths to get the president to equal 666.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." — Sam Adams