Patterico's Pontifications

8/24/2008

Nancy Pelosi Believes in Natural Gas

Filed under: Environment,Politics — DRJ @ 6:57 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes offshore drilling but today on Meet The Press, Pelosi strongly supported investment in “cheap, abundant and clean” natural gas. Natural gas is produced by drilling, including off-shore drilling.

Pelosi believes so much in natural gas that she’s put $50,000-$100,000 of her own money into a T. Boone Pickens’ investment that emphasizes natural gas:

“MR. BROKAW: You just mentioned natural gas, and you emphasized it as well in your last radio address…

REP. PELOSI: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: …talking about the energy plan. And then we read in The Wall Street Journal that you and your husband have made a substantial investment in the plan that T. Boone Pickens has put forward, which has a heavy emphasis on natural gas as well.

REP. PELOSI: But let me see if you call substantial 03 three percent of our investments.

MR. BROKAW: Oh, it’s what, between 100 and $200,000.

REP. PELOSI: No, no, it was between 50 and $100,000, and it’s part of an, you know, entrepreneurial package. This is the package we sign up for, this is what they invest in. But that’s not the point. I’m, I’m, I’m investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.

MR. BROKAW: But you’re also in a position to influence where the emphasis will be in where we’re moving.

REP. PELOSI: Well, that’s not–that is, that is the marketplace. The fact is, the supply of natural gas is so big, and you do need a transition if you’re going to go from fossil fuels, as you say, you can’t do it overnight, but you must transition. These investments in wind, in solar and biofuels and focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives.”

Speaker Pelosi is fortunate that $50-$100K is a de minimus investment in her family. Most of us think $100,000 is a lot of money and believe today’s high energy prices are budget-busters. Now that Pelosi is a believer in natural gas, I hope she will let the House vote on expanded drilling on federal and off-shore lands.

— DRJ

71 Responses to “Nancy Pelosi Believes in Natural Gas”

  1. I love the irony of going “away from fossil fuels” by using natural gas. Um, Nancy…you might want to look up what natural gas is before you run your mouth again.

    Watchman (22ca60)

  2. Does she really know that you have to drill for natural gas, or is she for using only imported natual gas? 3% of their investments?? Is she rich? How many houses does she own??

    lynndh (66e68f)

  3. Umm, maybe it is my government education, but last I heard, natural gas is…in fact…”fossil fuel”.

    So, Ms. Fancy Nancy…exactly what is the difference again?

    mjn1957 (6e1275)

  4. The Wall Street Journal article stated, “Including real-estate and bank account assets, the Pelosis’ net asset value is estimated at between $35 million and $156 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.” The party of the working class, indeed!

    Here’s the url, although of course the WSJ is a paid-subscription site.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121944622079465097.html

    JoeH (eeb280)

  5. She’s a blithering idiot if she thinks that natural gas is an alternative to “fossil fuels”. But I guess the qualifier is unnecessary, she’s just another moron.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. With an idiot like this in charge it’s no wonder the approval rating for Congress is so low.

    Didn’t she also claim she wasn’t a Washington insider this weekend?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  7. Nice one DRJ!
    From the article…Asked if the investment could raise the appearance of impropriety, even if it is legal, Mr. Hammill said such a standard would mean the speaker or her spouse wouldn’t be able to own shares in any company given the comprehensive nature of her position.

    But I thought corporations and capitalism were selfish and greedy?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  8. SanFranNan is a good, old-fashioned, class-hating, Poor-Little-Rich-Girl Democratic Pol.
    Of course, she has no idea that “natural gas” is a fossil-fuel – it comes out of the burner on the stove when the maid turns the handle.
    Plus, she wouldn’t be in favor of imported NG, because that would require a shipping terminal to accept the shipment – it might blow up (at least that’s the excuse the enviro-weenies used around here to oppose the terminal in Long Beach – located near a Liq. Propane Terminal, of all things; they really do blow up).

    Another Drew (03674a)

  9. She also has no idea that T. Boone Pickens’ energy plan is actually a kitchen sink plan, not just focusing on alternative energy solutions. He wants to drill here and drill now.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  10. Uh, two things DRJ.
    If the pump messes up when drilling for natural gas, either on the mainland or offshore, how do we go about cleaning up all the goop? (Disclaimer: I used to work in oil spill cleanup, not as a do-gooder, but for pretty good coin.) Surely it’s different from oil.
    And point two: I love when you cite as the authority “naturalgas.org.”
    Natural gas, indeed. Phhhhooooooffffffft.
    Authoritative, or just listenin’ to the song you hear in your head?

    Larry Reilly (d11f9a)

  11. The actual scheme she is buying into is designed to do two things.

    1. Create tax incentives and subsidies for Wind Power turbines in the Midwest and Western US.

    2. Create tax incentives and subsidies for converting autos to run on compressed natural gas.

    Drilling for more natural gas, while good for Americans, creating more supply, is not a big factor in this scheme.
    Its all about the government forcing these changes, and this venture benefiting from this modification of the energy market.

    j.pickens (53ee7a)

  12. T Boone Pickens, that old fox, know that if you want to make serious money, you don’t drill offshore. You drill in Washington. He is no dummy. He has $10 billion invested in this wind farm scheme and the money will come from Washington. Of course, he has no windmills on his 68,000 acres panhandle ranch. He says they’re too ugly.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. What’s with these huge ranges of figures? I thought it was just incomplete info when others reported that she had between $50K and $100K in natural gas. But even SHE doesn’t know how much it is! And surely, with all the income reporting that candidates do, we could have a more certain number on her net assets than “between $35 million and $156 million”. That’s a w-i-d-e spread!

    Don (9ca635)

  14. The CA government is trying to ram another invasion of privacy in the name of climate change bill though before everybody involved in the AGW scam is thrown out of office.

    Calif assembly bill 2800 has cleared the assembly and is headed for the State Senate.
    Bill Would Let Insurers Track Where, When, How Californians Drive
    SANTA MONICA, Calif., Aug 07, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Driving Data Could Be Used By Insurers to Discriminate By ZIP-Code
    Legislation that would allow insurance companies to track when, where and how Californians drive passed the Senate Appropriations committee today. The bill authorizes different insurance rates for drivers who choose to protect their privacy and those who agree to place a “black box” in their cars.
    “AB 2800 would force drivers to choose between fair insurance rates and protecting their privacy. No driver should have to make that choice,” said Carmen Balber with Consumer Watchdog. “Where I drive, when I get there and whether I stop on the way is not the business of my insurance company, or any other corporation who wants to place eyes in my car.”
    Nothing in AB 2800 prohibits insurance companies from tracking whatever information they choose – including speed, acceleration, location and time of day – in addition to mileage. The bill allows insurance companies to give discounts for driver participation in a tracking program, but does not mention discounts for drivers who actually reduce their mileage, the purported purpose of the bill.

    papertiger (4d1249)

  15. Could it be said that Nancy Pelosi has a conflict of interest here? I think so.

    And for all of you who think T. Boone Picken’s is the cat’s meow, here is a little tid-bit that never seemed to make the mainstream news.

    While all American is sitting watching Picken’s commercial thinking “Wow, what a patriot this guy is”. The only problem is that the power lines are not designed to carry such a heavy load as what will be generated by the Pickens wind farm. One week after his commercial came out, and it was announced that Pickens was investing $2 bil of how own money in a West Texas wind farm, the TUC (Texas Utility Commission) authorized a plan the upgrade electrial lines to carry large amounts of electricity. Those lines just happen to right straight to the location of Picken’s proposed wind farm. The cost? $4.93 Billion to Texas electricity users. Here is how it will work: the utility companies will be required to reimburse the state for the cost of the update construction which will begin sometime next year. But the electrical companies can start charging customers $4.00 on their bill NOW to defray the cost of reimbursement to the state.

    Got that? Every electric bill in Texas, no matter the location, will soon have a $4.00 surcharge on it to defray the cost of construction that hasn’t even started and T. Boone Pickens already has customers (since the State was kind enough to assist him) for a wind farm he hasn’t even built yet because the state will give him the ability to transfer the electricy generated by his turbines.

    Now, is that a sweet deal or not? And this doesn’t even delve into the water rights scam Pickens is trying to get passed where he will steal the water of every west Texas farmer/rancher and deplete the aquafer.

    Pickens…. patriot?

    No, profiteer.

    retire05 (e7d4bf)

  16. T. Boone Pickens gets to emiment domain land for his powerlines and waterlines. He does it under cover of “saving the planet”. That water district angle is disturbing. Apparently Mr. Pickens has the rights to vast amounts of underground fresh water he needs to transport from N. Texas too. This mostly explains his recent PR blitz.
    T. Boone Pickens & Water Districts Eminent Domain

    Wesson (f6c982)

  17. #13 Don-
    It seems the pols all supply figures like that. As if they don’t have a clue what they are worth by a factor of around 5 in Pelosi’s case. More apropos would be if enablers like Brokow would ask about the family deals and shady quid pro quos finagled over the years. Nancy and Ried are both dirty in the respect, but of course liberals want to bash McCain over his wife’s brewery wealth.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  18. Natural gas is a byproduct of drilling, whether you have a market for it or not. In many places it just gets flared — burned up for no purpose — because there is no ready market, via pipeline, liquification plant, etc.

    It would make sense to invest in bringing this gas to market, and it does NOT imply that one is doing more drilling, although more drilling means more natural gas.

    Note that Alaska has just signed a deal to bring North Slope natural gas to the lower 48 via a pipeline across Canada. This isn’t new gas, this is just gas that has been wasted up to now.

    Oddly, the do-gooder granola hippy crowd has done its level best preventing transport of this gas, even though flaring it to no good purpose ADDS TO GLOBAL WARMING.

    So, actually I cannot fault Pelosi on this one — better use of natural gas is a no-brainer — unless it is to say “why haven’t you been behind this for years?”

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  19. Hey, one other thing DRJ.
    You mentioned Nancy’s investments and jabbed her over the fact that $100,000 is a lot of money to most of us.
    I must be at the wrong blog. Jeez. I’m lost. Help me here. One hundred thousand dollars is chump change for the choir at this blog, ain’t it.
    I mean, McCain wants to cut, cut and continue to cut taxes of folks making beer-distributorship amounts more than the average schmo who has internet access and blog commentary fantasies/delusions of adequacy.
    He can tell the guys making under $100k per year, more likely under half that, never mind investments, that they’re the ones getting the big tax cuts, but how does that hold up percentage-wise with the ones making more than, oh, hundreds of millions?
    I dare anybody here to check the charts. This is where the likes of S.P.Q.R jump in and say it’s already been debunked. Last time I posted here I dealt with details of Gitmo and prosecutions of swarthy guys, good or bad. SPQR, who apparently puts up a blog debunking junk science, responded that what I said had been debunked a decade ago. That would be about 1998. Gitmo? Iraq? I think that came well after 2000. Uh, does SPQR measure current history with carbon dating? Or perhaps he’s informed by the Psychic Hotline? Junk science, indeed.
    Obama’s tax plan, and he has one in detail, at least compared to McCain, who just wants to buy bombs and have zero taxes (gotta love the long-term optimism and short-term kickass)…..Obama’s tax thoughts as laid out in the NYTIMES mag today in great detail http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin
    seem to say he’ll raise taxes on the rich, rich, super-rich, e.g. those making gazillions, but also significantly raising those in the way lower (McCain version) middle class who make $250k or better. Apparently those of us making under $250k will come out ahead, and I hope the filthy-rich choir here doesn’t take a moment of discomfort away from their riches and begrudge the rest of us on that.
    And if anyone wants to talk trickle-down theory, let’s look at the wetness of the richest pants legs. Dry as your future. You ain’t getting nothing from them as a result of their tax breaks, except for distant echoes of good-fool chuckles that you might hear coming from behind the gates. That’s why, including here, Cindy McCain’s fortune is considered to have resulted from hard work. Well, this Bud’s for you. Never mind off-shore drilling. Invest $100k in that off-shore corporation, e.g. foreign, that now owns Budweiser.

    Larry Reilly (d11f9a)

  20. The Financial Disclosure Forms have set ranges of value for the CongressMembers to report. This was done so the poor darlings don’t have to reveal the exact dollar amounts they have tied up in various investments, they are allowed to report a range of value. This even applies to their homes.

    Another Drew (03674a)

  21. By the by, combiuned-cycle natural gas plants are currently the most efficient way of making electricity, as far as pollution, energy and carbon are concerned. Coal is cheaper, of course, but inefficient and dirty as hell.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  22. Obama’s tax plan, and he has one in detail, at least compared to McCain

    Obama’s actual tax plan depends on what day of the week it is.

    As for McCain – yeah, percentage-wise the largest amount of tax breaks may be going to the richest, but when you pay the most taxes in the first place, that’s going to happen.

    If you raise taxes on rich people and corporations, they’ll do what rich people and corporations have always done – move – or, at minimum, move their assets so you that instead of getting more taxes, you aren’t getting any from them.

    Anon (db8e0c)

  23. Lest anyone wonder why this state is going down the tubes in many respects, look no further than madame speaker. She’s what passes for intelligent around the Bay Area. The comment about natural gas coming out of the stove when the maid turns it on pretty much nails Bay Area elite mentality. Sure as night follows day, the guy who manicures your estate is named Jose and nat gas is not a fossil fuel because it’s used in my home(s) everyday, these people are clueless and insufferable.

    That wouldn’t be so bad as long as they weren’t anywhere near power. Nothing wrong with being rich, arrogant and clueless. Add power into the mix and we’re talking industrial strenth danger, however.

    Chris (da1e70)

  24. Larry – Did you have a point you were trying to make? I got lost in all your bullshit.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  25. “The actual scheme she is buying into is designed to do two things.

    1. Create tax incentives and subsidies for Wind Power turbines in the Midwest and Western US.

    2. Create tax incentives and subsidies for converting autos to run on compressed natural gas.”

    From j.pickens – Sure sounds like a conflict then doesn’t it? Do you have a link to a description of the investment?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  26. “It would make sense to invest in bringing this gas to market, and it does NOT NECESSARILY imply that one is doing more drilling, although more drilling means more natural gas.”

    “So, actually I cannot fault Pelosi on this one — better use of natural gas is a no-brainer — unless it is to say “why haven’t you been behind this for years?”

    Keven Murphy – Fixed that first paragraph for you. I can fault Pelosi for what she said, particularly the following moronic statement, which clearly indicates she does not deserve the benefit of the doubt:

    “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  27. Larry Reilly,

    $100K is a lot of money to me but it’s not to Nancy Pelosi. If you want to talk with people who think that’s chump change, you should call Speaker Pelosi’s office.

    As for linking NaturalGas.org, I linked it solely to explain the process of exploring, drilling and producing natural gas. I know people who search for, drill for, and produce natural gas for a living and I’ve seen many natural gas wells. The explanation at that website is correct. The environmental damage that results from natural gas wells is comparatively slight and continually decreasing as we find better techniques.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  28. Larry Reilly,

    Many of today’s natural gas wells are deep gas wells. They are expensive but can be very prolific. Deep gas wells rarely produce oil because they are too deep and under temperatures too high for oil to exist. And while I can’t speak for every jurisdiction, the Texas Railroad Commission has been shutting down Texas fields since 1947 for flaring gas.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  29. Nancy Pelosi sez
    Gimmie da money!

    Commentors #15, 16

    Wha!!!?? You mean there are entrepreneurs out there who use their influence to bend the little guy over the table for a good screwing while they are making there gazillibucks?

    Can’t the benevolent Dems who love the little guy make that Picken’s fellow be nicer?
    Nah-

    Would he be nicer if he were given a Rep-style really big tax break forever?
    Nah-

    Don’t despair though! When the “free market” finally comes into play any century now that Pickens fellow will be FORCED to give everyone a fair shake or else (he will lose some money maybe).
    oop filtered out

    EdWood (4545e9)

  30. #19 – Mary Reilly

    I hope the filthy-rich choir here doesn’t take a moment of discomfort away from their riches and begrudge the rest of us on that.
    — And your evidence that this blog is crawling with the fiflthy rich is what? And by “what” I mean something beyond the simplistic stereotypes that emerge from Talking Points 101.

    the average schmo who has internet access and blog commentary fantasies/delusions of adequacy.
    — In your case, adequacy involves developing the ability to write coherent sentences and then organize them into readable paragraphs. We can work on your political stance later.

    Obama’s tax plan, and he has one in detail, at least compared to McCain, who just wants to buy bombs and have zero taxes
    — I don’t think . . . I mean I’m pretty sure that McCain’s tax plan doesn’t say that. You might want to read it again, by which I mean that you should read it the first time. Otherwise, you know, people ’round here might get the impression that you’re a fish-eyed-fool.

    Icy Truth (f54eb3)

  31. Retire05,

    I’m delighted to pay the extra money to expand the Texas electricity grid. As you know, Texas has its own intrastate grid and this contributes to making sure Texas has enough energy for the future. No wonder Texas leads the nation with 58 companies listed in the 2008 Fortune 500. At times Texans have paid a premium for energy. However, unlike many other states, we have enough to keep our economy growing.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  32. So, the BotoxBitchByTheBay coughed up between 50 and 100k, which is 3% of her and hubby’s investments. (BTW, how much do you think he ‘personally’ invests in the scotch market on a daily basis?) That comes out to $2.5 mil; 10 times above Obama’s threshold for wealth.

    She thinks that natural gas is acceptable because it doesn’t spill and get the seagulls and otters and duckies all oozy.

    Speaking of fossil fuels . . . they used to burn witches, didn’t they?

    Icy Truth (f54eb3)

  33. Ya know, when you have a confluence of factors: 2nd largest state by land area and 2nd largest in population, and add to it extreme weather patterns — you have the perfect setup for multiple energy companies to survive and thrive (with one very notable exception).

    Icy Truth (f54eb3)

  34. That’s a lot of money and she acts like it is nothing. I think the next time the democratics talk about John McCain’s houses, they should bring up that dems like Nancy Pelosi seem to think that 50 – $100,000 is a small investment.

    nick (65f9cf)

  35. I have a plot for a new musical. I call it The Music Windmill Man.

    Confidence man Harold Hill T. Boone Pickens arrives at staid River City West Texas intending to cheat the community with his standard scam of offering to equip and train a boy’s marching band build a wind farm, then skip town with the money since he has no music skill knowledge of windmills anyway.

    Richard Nieporent (c9e28f)

  36. That didn’t work too well. What happened to the strike tag? It showed correctly in the preview.

    Music –> Windmill
    Harold Hill –> T. Boone Pickens
    River City –> West Texas
    equip and train a boy’s marching band –> build a wind farm
    music skill –> knowledge of windmills

    Richard Nieporent (c9e28f)

  37. DRJ, perhaps you are happy to pay more on your electric bill, starting now before the lines are upgraded, but tell that to a family who has seen their electric bill rise from $150/month to $450/month is year. Tell that to the families who are having a hard time paying for the food they put on their tables.

    If you think Pickens’ didn’t have anything to do with the TUC voting to up grade the lines that just happen to run past his proposed west Texas wind farm, you must be smoking something that is illegal in Texas. Colombian, maybe?

    Our economy grows for two reasons: man power and low corporate taxes. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what we charge for fuel because if our fuel costs are high, corporations could not afford to locate here. Or do you think all those businesses operate with the lights turned off?

    The TUC has announced that by 2012, 20% of all electicity in Texas will come from wind turbine generators. Wonder who had something to do with that? I guess with all the clout Pickens has in D.C., you think he has none in Austin? And why is Pickens picking up all the natural gas leases inside the Giddings field? I was just contacted last week by a company that buys leases for him to lease my ranch land for mainly a gas well. I am in the Gidding field.

    You say we (Texans) have enough energy to keep us going? Is that why there is a Florida Power and Light plant off Hwy. 71 near Austin? Is that why LCRA just sold off it’s wind farm to FPL? Do you really think that a company called Florida Power and Light is generating electricy for Texans? Give me a break.

    It makes no sense to say that we have plent of energy but it costs us more. If we have plenty, we should pay less. It’s ours. We need to keep it and not be selling it to states like California who doesn’t want those ugly refineries and wind farms messing up their landscrapes.

    And don’t kid yourself; Pickens is in this for the money, not because he is such a patriot. Once a corporate raider, always a corporate raider and if left up to Pickens, not only will he controll most of the wind generated power in the state, but the natuaral gas and water, to boot.

    retire05 (74abc7)

  38. Larry Reilly, coherency not your strong point, eh?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. Coal is cheaper, of course, but inefficient and dirty as hell.

    Actually, newer coal plants run VERY clean, and coal from some states (such as Illinois) burn cleaner than others.

    I’m lost. Help me here. One hundred thousand dollars is chump change for the choir at this blog, ain’t it.

    While I will ignore the furtherance of the “Republicans are the party of the rich” smear (trust me, PLENTY of rich folks swear by liberal talking points), I feel that I should point out that $100,000 is considered a sizeable investment by most of the country. No matter the party.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  40. Larry Reilly, coherency not your strong point, eh?

    Never has been, never will.

    JD (75f5c3)

  41. Retire 05-
    I feel your pain. At least you don’t have the prospect of brown and black outs like California did some time back. I live in S. Fl. and know that the biggest energy source for FPL utility is natural gas. No clue about Texas costs for the various goodies. I did hear from friend in Houston that housing prices have held up well. My own neighborhood took a 50% dive since highs of ’05. The various hurricanes didn’t help and also made insurance costs surge, but my property taxes are dropping a bit and even when they rose were limited to 3% annually with Homstead Law.
    I have a modest 2 bedroom town house in tony east boca, where Bobby Wexler kept a room at his mother-in-law’s place. I don’t know how the average folks in Honolulu, San Fran/San Jose, Stamford, etc. afford housing and taxes. It was bad enough getting ripped on a one bedroom condo in suburban Philly area. If the proposed budget changes are implemented, I’ll be paying $574 annually in property taxes. And NO state income tax…or city wage tax, occupational privilege tax, per capita tax, state auto inspection, etc.
    I recall reading about alternative energy sources as a child in the fifties. Fifty years later, very little has been accomplished in that regard. The agitprop movie China Syndrome is on AMC right now. Hanoi Jane was so good for the Vietnam war and eviserating the nuclear power industry.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  42. Drilling for natural gas has different environmental consequences than drilling for oil. The latter being the worst.

    Apples and Oranges.

    Oiram (983921)

  43. Drilling is bad people. BAD. Unless it helps out the Speaker, in which case, it is good, clean, and obviously the path we need to be taking.

    JD (5f0e11)

  44. JD, Drilling is good, GOOD, as long as it helps the major oil companies.

    Oiram (983921)

  45. What activity would help the minor oil companies?

    Another Drew (6c5558)

  46. Same mendoucheous talking points.

    Drilling is good because it is good for the US citizens, Oiram. That the oil companies turn a 9 percent profit while doing so is an added bonus. Unlike the Leftists, I do not begrudge people making a profit.

    JD (5f0e11)

  47. And they say that secularists don’t believe in Satan.

    Big business bad! Big business bad! Big business bad!

    Icy Truth (f54eb3)

  48. Max333,

    part of the problem that created the brown/black outs in California was the fact that the previous governor refused to pay for the electricity it was buying from Texas. After so long, and the debt became so great, Rick Perry said “No more until you pay for what you already got.” Wholla! Blackouts in CA.

    Remember, we here in Texas have no state employment tax, and while our property taxes are higher than what I would prefer, our insurance, at least here in central Texas, is cheaper than Florida (I have a good friend in Ocala). We also don’t have personal property taxes and our current state sale tax is 6.25%. My car tags are around $80/for a F250. And after being in Mississippi for two years, I will tell you that food is much, much cheaper here.

    Housing prices have stayed stable, and in some areas, are even increasing slightly. Basically, except for a few spots in Houston and Dallas, we have not been affected by the townturn. The exodus from northern states into Texas continues. If you look, all the southern states are growing in population, especially those with low tax bases. The Democrats are taxing themselves right out of business, residents and improvements.

    retire05 (74abc7)

  49. Say what you all want, but the original post here by DRJ was equating Drilling for oil with Drilling for Natural Gas.

    Pelosi understands the difference, do all of you?

    Oiram (983921)

  50. No, O-man. Nancy doesn’t have a f…… clue!

    Another Drew (6c5558)

  51. You are aware that quite often the two are found at the same time, yes?

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  52. Scott @ 10:05…
    I am, but I can’t speak for others – except that Nan has yet to demonstrate any cogent thought on our energy problems.

    Another Drew (6c5558)

  53. For the life of me I don’t understand what keeps working, productive segments of the population in places like Michigan from bailing. Same goes for Virginia, Taxachusetts, New York and the Peoples’ Republics of Maryland and Rhode Island. I suppose Jersey and few others are as bad. Doesn’t Va. also charge car registration based on value of the car? When I lived in Pa. in early nineties the heating bills for some people were astronomical. I bet some citizens in the coal country rue the day they stopped using coal and switched to oil, gas or electric.
    My tags are about 1/3 of what you pay. There’s a push to clean up sewage discharge into the ocean and some water rates south of me are skyrocketing. I can’t imagine that water is any less expensive in the southwest.
    Btw, today Rick at http://www.rightwingnuthouse.com has a nice take on the comparison between McGovern and what he did to party in ’72 and Big Zero’s talking points now. The disaffected yoots and other assorted liberal assholes are now running things. DNC Preview: ‘Come Home, America’ Redux

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  54. Screw the people and make some money. Isn’t this the operating philosophy of the Democrat party?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  55. Sorry Drew… It was meant for Oiram…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  56. Scott…
    No Problemo!

    Another Drew (6c5558)

  57. madmax333 wrote: The agitprop movie China Syndrome is on AMC right now. Hanoi Jane was so good for the Vietnam war and eviserating the nuclear power industry.

    I beg to differ about The China Syndrome.

    There is no doubt that the film has an anti-nuke slant to it, but taken as a whole on its own merits, it is — IMHO — one of the most riveting, well-crafted suspense movies of all time. Michael Douglas was just emerging at that time from his familiarity as a TV cop in Streets of San Francisco, and would later become a legit movie star. Jack Lemmon, one of the greatest actors in the history of celluloid, deserved the Oscar that year more than did Dustin Hoffman, who starred in the criminally overpraised Kramer vs. Kramer (also nominated that year: Pacino in And Justice For All [“You’re outta order!”], Sellers in Being There, Duvall in Apocalypse Now).

    Despite the presence of Hanoi Jane, Syndrome is no Oliver Stone speculatory conspiracy crock-pot, or a Michael Moore/Errol Morris/Barbara Kopple (or worse, Robert Greenwald) polemic thinly disguised as a documentary. It’s just as much about television news and corporate corruption at large as it is about the dangers of nuclear energy, and — never forget this — in the end, despite all the incompetence and greed, the fail-safe systems worked, just like they did at Three Mile Island.

    It’s easy to blame China Syndrome for prejudice about the nuke industry, but had the incident at Three Mile Island never happened, the picture wouldn’t have had the impact it did. It was a perfect storm of circumstances that messed up everything.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  58. That Pelosi exchange would make a great McCain commercial.

    Patricia (5f00ec)

  59. Let’s not forget that the major additional supplier of natural gas to California will the Russians.

    They’ll ship liquefied natural gas from Sakalin Island off Siberia to Mexico where it will be regasified and piped into the California system.

    We could have had Australian LNG land off Malibu but the “stars” turned out to help kill that.

    I’d feel safer with Aussie gas than with Russian gas – what about you?

    Joseph Somsel (e5cbf5)

  60. And if we don’t drill, others will. Cuba has granted drilling rights to China, Canada and other countries to drill just 50 miles off the Florida coast.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  61. #59 – I’d feel safer with Aussie gas than with Russian gas – what about you?

    — Uh, what do yo think the Russkies are gonna put in it?

    (‘Putin it’ – get it?)

    Icy Truth (b746b7)

  62. “Say what you all want, but the original post here by DRJ was equating Drilling for oil with Drilling for Natural Gas.

    Pelosi understands the difference, do all of you?”

    Oiram – Why don’t you point out where you believe it shows Pelosi she understands a difference exists or explains a difference.

    Btw, she says natural gas is an alternative to fossil fuels three times in that segment with Brokaw. She was not merely misspeaking. She is an idiot.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  63. Oiram 8/25/2008 @ 10:00 AM:

    Say what you all want, but the original post here by DRJ was equating Drilling for oil with Drilling for Natural Gas.

    That wasn’t the point of the post. First, I’m unhappy that Pelosi has invested substantial personal funds in something she is pushing as Speaker.

    Second, I’m confused if Pelosi even understands how we explore for and produce natural gas. She’s been a determined opponent to off-shore drilling but that’s how we produce some of our natural gas. I don’t understand how she can be so clearly against drilling but clearly for natural gas.

    DRJ (a5243f)

  64. Excellent point, I forgot about that. Nancy Pelosi is an idiot for not showing leadership and support for that LNG terminal. Heck, she probably thinks the off-shore LNG terminal is a Big Oil rig and can cause oil-spills. Obama conflates all these issues too.

    #59: We could have had Australian LNG land off Malibu but the “stars” turned out to help kill that.

    Wesson (f6c982)

  65. #57 L.N. Smithee,
    I bow to your superior insight into the movie. Still, our intransigent greens, far left fever swamp denizens and NIMBYs are admantly opposed to any new nuclear plants. But of course the socialists in France have not prevented that country from obtaining much of their electricity from nuclear sources.
    There are so many crazy rules and excessive red tapes, lawsuits and other barriers to new refineries, exploration for new energy sources and those aforementioned nuke plants. Obama and his minions merely offer more of the same bad policy.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  66. I’m shocked Pelosi didn’t think Natural Gas was Mason Williams’ hit guitar instrumental.

    L.N. Smithee (0931d2)

  67. Natural gas may burn cleaner than other fuels, but it is very energy-intensive to extract. It takes millions of gallons or water per well to extract natural gas. Many chemicals are used to break up the shale from which the gas is extracted by a process called “hydraulic fracturing.” Hundreds of trucks are needed to transport the materials including water. There is nothing “clean” about this process.

    Lisa Ann Wright (b6ac03)

  68. But it’s “clean-burning”! That’s what all the industry ads say. . . .

    Icy Truth (1d6b22)

  69. This article talks more about Pelosi’s investment, and why it’s an ideal time.

    Nathan (7463d7)

  70. How dumb is this lady she does not understand natural gas is a fossil fuel

    Jeremy (3e0148)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4026 secs.