Dog Bites Man, Palin Annoys Left
I’ve made no secret of my general disdain for Sarah Palin. But even populist attention whores sometimes shine the spotlight where it belongs. And she’s a far more right than wrong when she says “Drill, baby, drill” could very well have mitigated or even prevented the Gulf crisis.
One has to be especially purblind no to realize that the limits on drilling (whether off- or on-shore) makes projects like Deepwater Horizon necessary. The first offshore drilling installation was built in 189re good at it. But rigs like Deepwater Horizon that push the envelope of our engineering skills are needed because we’ve blocked off so many shallower areas on our coasts.
Deepwater Horizon was drilling a mile below the surface, having commenced this particular operation in February. So Palin is right: Had we issued permits for heretofore blocked off waters in shallower, safer areas sooner, the Deepwater Horizon well might not have even been necessary. It’s a lot easier — and cheaper — to drill in a few hundred feet of water than a mile.
Of course it goes without saying that a tweet highlighting the greater safety and reliability of ANWR drilling hardly contradicts her earlier complaint that offshore drilling permits had been held up too long, TPMDC’s spin notwithstanding. In fact, if that’s the best one can do to attack her for making patently obvious statements, one would really do better just to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.
No-one likes that the oilspill happened. But using, as so many have leaped to do, it to argue against all oil drilling is like saying a tree falling in a windstorm means we shouldn’t have orchards. A tree on top of a hill in Tornado Alley that’s been partially sawed through.
This article, from the blog The Oil Drum, argues that most of the easily obtained oil is already gone, and that oil companies have to drill is less that optimum places:
Gulf Oil Spill: With so many oil resources, can’t we just drill somewhere else?
The article is worth a look.
That sentence by itself proves that you don’t know your ass from an oil well in the ground about the industry.
Oil companies drill where the reserves are, and in the deep waters of the Gulf they have discovered huge reserves. The shallower waters of the Gulf are played out for elephant hunters like BP.
One word; Iztoc. (Also see above comments.)
Steve
Palin is incessantly attacked by those on the left so it’s become something of a sport to defend her. I don’t think she’s presidential material but she’s not as bad as liberals want to think she is. In fact I believe it’s the Left that keeps her in the news while the rest of us realize she’s not running for office so why pay attention at all.
The issue of oil and energy is much more complicated than a single spill or ‘drill, baby, drill’. The really sad fact is we have a crappy energy policy and the outlook for having one is being clouded by all the talk of green energy. Oil is king and will remain king for generations. We will never have energy independence and may not even want it but energy security is a worthwhile goal. Natural gas is changing the energy landscape quickly. It is no longer just an oil byproduct but a major source in itself. Oil shale is slowly coming around and the oil sands are already becoming the largest source of imported oil we use.
As with the health care debate the solution is not one silver bullet that cures all ills but a hundred one percent solutions. More domestic oil, natural gas, nuclear, and coal are needed. Conservation will actually do more than green energy ever will but green energy will be developed for some applications. All fronts must dealt with in a rational manner rather than in the emotional way we have formulated policy in the past.
The cost of oil has damaged our economy and will continue to be a drag on our recovery unless we can get prices down. Right now we don’t even have a plan to get that done.
That was my understanding as well, that “drill” relies on the listener not quite understanding the nature of remaining reserves. In worst cases it is a bald faced lie, that “we have plenty of oil, but ‘they’ won’t let us drill.”
@Plunk
See the article I cited above, Steve, for an analysis of why oil prices will not (ever) come down.
Sam,
I agree much of the cheap oil is already pumped but as our drilling technology improves more oil becomes available. Oil can come down in price if we replace it as a motor fuel with natural gas. Fleets have used natural gas before and engines can be easily converted. Some conversions will not even void a new car warranty. Every gallon of alternative fuel or new oil will help lower prices. Artificial constraints will only raise them higher.
We may never see $20/barrel oil but at $40 we would see a great benefit to the economy. $40 oil is reasonable and within the realm of possibilities.
Steve, as the article points out, it’s not that the oil is not available, it’s that it’s expensive to extract. As for the rest of what you just wrote, I agree in general with the sentiment expressed, but please do take into the account the rapidly rising demand for oil from China and India. That should exert significant upward pressure on the price.
When someone starts out by telling me I ‘don’t know my ass from an a hole in the ground,’ it’s a good sign they didn’t actually pay attention to what I said. This is no exception.
Did I say anything about the Gulf? Or did I specifically post a picture of all the areas currently blocked off? The areas Obama said he’d open — and that Palin said were “too little, too late” — were on the eastern seaboard and Alaskan coast. Those areas aren’t being avoided by oil companies because there are no reserves there. They’re off limits.
Estimates of east coast reserves alone go as high as 30 billion barrels. Alaska would be considerably higher. And we haven’t even mentioned the 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves offshore. In short, pay closer attention before you hurl insults.
All the easy oil is gone, huh? And what’s available is too expensive to reasonably extract? I find this hard to believe when within the last two weeks I read a speculative article stating that Canada may become our leading source of oil imports – using oil extracted from tar sands and shale. Now that’s an expensive process.
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil onshore in United States to be 48.5 billion barrels (7.71×109 m3) [7] [9] The last comprehensive National Assessment was completed in 1995. Since 2000 the USGS has been re-assessing basins of the U.S. that are considered to be priorities for oil and gas resources. Since 2000, the USGS has re-assessed 22 priority basins, and has plans to re-assess 10 more basins. These 32 basins represent about 97% of the discovered and undiscovered oil and gas resources of the United States. The three areas considered to hold the most amount of oil are the coastal plain (1002) area of ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, and the Bakken Formation. [emphasis added]
Juneau, you didn’t get why that article said tar sand oil (“Now that’s an expensive process”) would become “our leading source of oil imports” and at the same time “All the easy oil is gone, huh?”
Think about it. Those two go together.
I that “undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil onshore” is a very interesting string of words, but surely you also must pause on the “undiscovered” part. That is based on a statistical model of some kind, on how much oil they find when they look new places. As all the likely places are looked at, the odds must change.
Dodd, asking a string of questions is not quite as strong as pointing us to known and discovered reserves sized enough to significantly reduce imports (or as an alternative to deepwater).
You got nutthin’ but bluster. I can see why you like the same from Palin.
“Estimates of east coast reserves alone go as high as 30 billion barrels. Alaska would be considerably higher. And we haven’t even mentioned the 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves offshore. ”
We use about 7.5 billion barrels a year. That is a 4 year supply. As noted in many articles, including the one cited above, it will be more costly. I have seen estimates of about 86 billion total offshore, or about 11 years worth. Not long term solutions. I do think we should be using natural gas more than we are at present.
On shale, have we developed a commercially viable extraction process with a positive return on energy invested to generate the oil?
Steve
You should be ashamed of yourself referring to Sarah Palin in that manner. But I guess you must be used to it considering the unmarried status of your simian mother and intellectually challenged father.
Plain is dead on. If we had just allowed them to drill baby, drill in ANWAR, there would be no environmental disasters like the Gulf spill. Alaska’s perfect record in preventing oil spills pretty much proves this.
Oh, wait a minute…
This is an idea we should be taking a hard look at.
Having already immerded yourself once not paying enough attention to what you’re carping about, I’d think you’d avoid doing it a second time. And I’d be wrong. Two questions followed by actual facts and stuff (things you’re apparently not familiar with) don’t go down to doubling down on the ad hominems with some projection on top, friend.
Since we wouldn’t be pulling it all out at once, or relying on it exclusively, it would obviously last a lot longer (even if, for the first time ever, those estimates don’t rise as price, experience, and technology change). To the significant benefit of our energy security.
In short, that’s never a reason not to exploit. But, yes, we have to make better use of NG. Which we also can’t do if we refuse to let ourselves get it.
I have to take issue (in part) with your statement that had fields in shallower waters been available, the deepwater horizion accident wouldn’t have happened.
First, the problem wasn’t due to the depth of the water as much as the nature of the oil and gas they tapped in the field.
Second, blowouts in even relatively shallow waters can be extremely difficult to fix. Above Steve referenced the Ixtoc blow out in 1979 that took 10 months to fix, and that was in 160 ft of water. Granted that happened in 1979, and technology has progressed some, but if you read the descriptions of what they were doing to stop the oil, they should remind you a lot of what they’re trying right now.
I also think that ANWR is a red herring. Drilling in ANWR and piping the oil down to the lower 48 is more expensive than simply buying it from other sources. (brief aside: right now, we sell the Alaskan oil to Japan and China and take the money and use it to buy oil from the middle east. This isn’t a criticism, I believe that this is a good policy, and if ANWR is drilled, and we start pumping oil, and it’s still more expensive than buying it from other sources, then we should continue this policy.)
My point is that it’s expensive to drill in Alaska, and the economics MAY have been such that drilling in deep parts of the Gulf of Mexico would make financial sense whether we’re drilling in ANWR or not.
Look, the question at hand is straightforward; is it an environmental issue in regards to cost, or a purely economic one? The issue here is that oil exploration leases are tightly restricted within the continental US and we really have no idea what may be available. The quote about “undiscovered” reserves put forth by personna is purely an industry-specific technical term. ANWR is not theoretical, nor is the Bakken field. The only unknown here is exactly how much is located in these areas in total. The reason we don’t know is because the EPA and the Dept, of the Interior have a literal choke-hold on these ventures due to political reasons that have nothing to do with economics. They are, in fact, contrary to the economic interests of the country.
ANWR, baby, ANWR!
(and, yeah, Sarah’s no genius, but she does have pretty good instincts.)
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]
Why don’t you get back to us on that after the total bill for the Deepwater Horizon disaster is tallied. Of course that may take many years.
Hey, you did not finish our recent discussion. Rant ‘n run?
The main component here is not price – it is independence. Although, as a side benefit, the price would very likely be lower if OPEC had to seduce us into buying more than 10% of our oil from them. The prospect of losing your best customer tends to drive pricing down. As mentioned previously, even if we use home-grown reserves to reduce our foreign imports by only 30%, it would extend just the known supply out to the 15 -20 year mark. This is not counting any new discovery or technologies.
I pay extra to have insurance against someone stealing my TV. I would not have a serious problem paying extra insurance to take the inherent leverage away from OPEC countries and our friend Hugo down south.
True. Her instincts told her that if she stabbed the voters of Alaska in the back should could make a bundle…
Anjin: What discussion are you talking about? Which topic?
On the other hand, they might just tell us to piss off and sell to China and India.
“Let’s stay dependent on 19th century technology for as long as possible” – The conservative plan for America in the 21st century…
Professor Palin. The ball is in your court.
As is mentioned before, there is oil is where they are drilling, so sooner or later someone was going to drill there.
Pretty much everything I’ve read indicates that this likely could have been prevented if various companies (BP most notably) and government bureaucracies had not cut corners, falsified safety reports, ignored various procedures and the like to fast track this… and make a bigger profit. I don’t think you can say if it was closer to shore that it wouldn’t have happened.
That may have been easier to deal with, but it would also have been a much more immediate threat, so it would have been a trade off at best. Think about the damage that could have been caused by having this go on for just a week or two’ a mile, or ten, outside New York Harbor, Norfolk Harbor or at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. The east coast is pretty heavily developed, which is why you don’t want this kind of thing close to shore there. (No, I have no idea where the oil is off the east coast, I’m going by the red on your map.) You might make more of a case on the west coast, but you still have a current that would eventually throw all this into LA and San Diego harbors, not too mention the Puget Sound and SF Bay.
Juneau: I fear I was unclear.
My point was that BP/Transocean would drill in the Mississippi Canyon if they could make money by selling the oil for a higher price than it cost to extract it, regardless of whether ANWR is producing oil.
What profitability is dependent on is the price of oil, and from everything I’ve seen, drilling in ANWR (and other environmentally sensitive areas) would not depress the price of oil to the point that drilling in the Mississippi Canyon would be unprofitable.
Hence, it’s a red herring.
The problem is that your supposed “21st century” energy sources aren’t viable. Wind farms, geo-thermal, bioFuels, etc; the math doesn’t even add up on them in regards to energy spent vs. energy created. Plus, the so called “green house” gases produced by implementing them full scale are even worse for some of them than the carbon based energy sources. Even nuclear energy (which is used to great effectiveness by other developed countries such as France) is frowned upon by the liberal left. Like oil and coal, it has been demonized – remember “The China Syndrome?” And the Meryl Streep scarefest movie?
But carbon based sources are “dirty.” Which is my main problem with the arguments from the left. They are based on pure emotion, not practicality.
See, with all due respect, it this type of argument that really makes me think that the foundation of your concerns is just a form of “knee-jerk’ reaction. ANWR is no more environmentally sensitive than any other place on dry land. The pictures put out by the Sierra Club and others show ANWR as this wonderful pristine mountain scene with glacial rivers flowing through a placid meadow dotted with might Sitka spruce trees. It’s not. It’s a bunch of raw tundra with lichen and moss.
Your argument is an argument of extreme. Drilling there doesn’t translate into drilling everywhere. Do you really think the right is completely made up of greedy, defile-at-any-cost, people who couldn’t give a rat’s hiney about preserving the environment?
Your right. It will be hard. It will require inventiveness, investment, and a strong entrapraneural spirit. Let’s give up. That’s the American way, right?
Just caught this… I’ll go back and review to see what you’re referencing.
” They are, in fact, contrary to the economic interests of the country.”
Long term or short? We might be better off saving those fields for later if we can. We can follow a “drain America last policy.” (Forget who coined the similar term) Search safer areas first while the technology improves. Use natural gas, increase nuclear and other alternatives and conservation, the real low hanging fruit. One could make the case, I believe, that we will have less pressure to develop alternatives if we accelerate domestic drilling.
Steve
Anjin: I can’t find the conversation you’re referencing. I’ve looked through the various topics and I don’t see that thread. The only official topic on OTB about “Professor Palin” is not one I commented on. Could you be a bit more specific about the “official” topic title that you left me a comment on? The new design is not helping…
This is a good point, and worth looking at closely as a strategic decision. But isn’t it academic if the push is to make the very pursuit of these natural resources “evil?” It seems to me that necessity is the mother of invention, but a false necessity puts incredible strain on the resources of the nation, not to mention the purely poisonous idea of creating “false” emergencies to centralize power and authority under a dubious environmental mandate.
Noooo… the idea here is that Obama’s “green economy” is nothing but a pie-in -the-sky sales slogan to promote the further vilification of a necessary resource; carbon-based energy production. If you really are serious about creating new energy sources, don’t you think that you should have at least one viable alternative before you change the economic basis for our entire nation? This is not a realistic or practical approach. If you want to sat that the right will never find alternatives until forced, fine. But don’t kill the patient with the cure.
First time ever?
I suggest you google ThunderHorse. Both BP and Exxon/Mobile will lose money on that gambit. And several other deepwater fields have been shown to be capable of far less reserves than the initial estimates.
Price, experience and technology don’t produce. Productive fields do.
I have not heard ANYONE propose this. Pretty standard right wing hysteria Jeuneau. Certainly carbon based energy is necessary to the oil & coal companies and their well-paid water carriers, the GOP, and they have worked hard to keep it necessary to everyone. These are, after all, the folks who willfully destroyed the excellent public transportation system we had in this country once upon a time.
Excuse me, but what do you call it when the President continually speaks of creating a “green economy”? That seems pretty all-inclusive to me. You know, it’s convenient to talk about the GOP and “well-paid water carriers”, but my mother’s 401K happens to be invested in these kinds of businesses , along with millions of other retirees. Obama’s demonization of these industries is sure helping their portfolios out. /s
Further proof that it is not right wing hysteria
From his “Organiziing for American” website:
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/08/obama_tours_seattlebased_green.php
“Obama’s comprehensive plan to create a green economy and combat climate change includes:”
From his 2008 speech in Berlin, Germany:
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Following : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/25/barack-obama-green-economy- environment
“To truly transform our economy, protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” the president said. “So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.”
So let’s see. Obama uses a pretty stock Democratic slogan, and you parse that into a Presidential plan to alter the economic underpinnings of our economy without any viable backbone energy sources in place to transition to. Do you wonder why the right is regarded as a nest of intellectual flyweights?
While we are at it, can you show evidence of Obama “demonizing” energy industries? You know, making claims that are easily proven false & so on? Why would one have to “demonize” BP? The facts are quite damming. They had a huge investment in Deepwater Horizon, and they were in a hurry to bring it online and start deriving some revenue from the investment. So they cut corner & ignored best practices. Now we are looking at an unprecidented disaster.
Oh, please. Nothing I said even remotely suggests I was speaking of specific fields. Responding as if I had is a pretty lame attempt to shift rhetorical ground.
Yes. Obama wants to develop new technologies, have America lead the world into a more energy efficient future and limit damage to the environment. Bastard.
I must have missed the part where he said “I am going to issue an executive order banning the use of fossil fuels regardless of the consequences”. Was it on O’Rilley or Beck?
Are you going to completely ignore the references above from his own website? Who’s parsing words now..
Please see his Berlin speech reference above about melting the ice caps and shrinking coastlines.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Where exactly does he mention the energy industry?
Look, you made this statement:
So show us where Obama said he was going to change the economic basis for our nation (something which is beyond his power, by the way, thus something of a red herring) without having an alternative in place. Not where you infer it, not where it seems that way to you, where he said it.
I asked you a direct question Dodd, about known reserves. Did I miss an answer?
Or are you doing a two-step now, that it’s not about oil, but about natural gas?
(My understanding is that “years of natural gas” change dramatically when you start to model a greater automotive shift.)
This page of known reserves shows the US with ~20 billion barrels, and a modeled 8 years of reserve life.
Do you wonder why I don’t respect your argument Dodd? It’s the classic ignore the facts, drill, and it will be magic. I mean did you even notice the wiggle-words you packed into your claim?
Estimates go as high as? What’s the best estimate, not the highest?
Juneau.
You’re still missing my point.
Palin’s argument is that by drilling in ANWR, we would not have to drill in deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico, and thus the Deepwater Horizon spill wouldn’t have happened had we all just listened to her.
My point is that, given the price of oil (and the increasing global demand for oil), the economics are such that there would always be an incentive to drill in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, even if, hypothetically, drilling was allowed *everywhere*.
Therefore, what palin was saying is just wrong.
Furthermore, I wasn’t assuming that conservatives were environmental meanies, or whatever. Just that corporations will have an economic incentive to make money where they can. This isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. However, if national politicians (read: sarah palin) ignore the system of rewards that is in place when making statements concerning energy and environmental policy, they’re going to sound like idiots.
Dodd (and I suppose Juneau) check out this econbrowser post. On one level it shows how to discuss this rationally, without the “drill” emotion, and more importantly it shows how reserve predictions have been changing in recent years.
Seriously, check out the first graph.
Drilling Moratorium Lifted in Shallow Water, Report Says
By Jane Van Ryan | Tuesday 1 June 2010
Facts Sam? All we need to know is that “drill, baby, drill” is a slogan. That makes it true.
BTW. I do hope we all see the problem with this
Is there any evidence at all that the oil companies would not drill in deep water if they could also drill in shallow? As was pointed out, the oil companies go where the oil is, shallow or deep. What make deep drilling necessary is the demand for oil and the desire of the companies to profit from that demand, not any governmental restrictions.
I certainly get that Sam. But when I get frustrated and tell Dodd he’s being stupid, he calls it an ad hominem. He doesn’t quite get that yelping “ad hominem” isn’t a defense for, you know, being stupid.
BTW, I should say that I have no doubt in my mind that we will use all the oil ultimately. We aren’t the sort of creatures that would leave it there. The argument is about timing.
Have you ever heard about the marshmallow experiment?
“Drill, baby, drill” types are just the one-marshmallow eaters, wanting something now even if it means nothing later.
Hey, look, I’m not throwing this at any particular person who’s posted here on this topic. But I gotta share this. Krauthammer made the Palin argument (let’s call it that, ok?), and Jon Chait wrote a piece debunking the argument. He titled the piece, The Spillage Idiot.
I’m sorry you get frustrated by facts and logical argument, but repeating the insult is no more effective at supporting your (alleged) point than your initial resort to it.
The circular logic (the best producing wells are deep water wells in areas open for exploration wherein shallow water wells are largely tapped out) on offer at least looks like an attempt to debate in good faith. When you decide to try something that let me know.
Thank you for another zero-content insistence, Dodd.
How many facts and links did you have to skip just to insist that “stupid is right?”
BTW, I probably wouldn’t enjoy dumping on you quite so much if you lost the martini, bow-tie, and tortoise shells. It’s the elite posturing combined with the idiocy that really makes it fun.
Looks like. That’s cool. But will you answer the question I raised (in good faith): Is there any reason to suppose that even if the oil companies could drill in heretofore undrilled shallow water, they wouldn’t still drill in deep water? That’s Palin’s argument, and your’s too, I guess: if the oil companies can drill in shallow water, they won’t drill in deep water. But is there any evidence for it?
To answer your question Sam, oil companies would rationally drill whenever the (projected) market price exceeds their cost of production. If they can raise deep oil at $60, and sell it at $80, that’s good business.
The only reason to not-drill would be if so many new sources were opened up as to drive world oil price below the cost of deep-water production. I don’t think there is enough oil in US territories to do that, but I suppose Dodd could try to prove it.
I’ll help. Here is an EIA page that lists 40 billion barrels available for US drilling, and 18 billion in closed areas. Though, it’s really the marshmallow problem. We are essentially reserving a minority of our oil. We can drill it (we will drill it) later on.
Could those closed areas be brought on line fast enough to impact world oil price?
If we did, would we just be screwing ourselves further down the line?
Careful John, Dodd will “sharpen his claws”…
Well, I am wearing a bowtie. The rest is on par with your usual standards of accuracy: no tortoise shells, no martini, just more insults and projection.
I’m amused you appear to think you’re winning despite not having actually made a single rational argument or presented any actual attempts at a rebuttal that wasn’t a logical fallacy. You’d be better served to take your… debate technique to Fark where a horde of your peers will rabidly support you. You’re outmatched here.
This is the old “trees kill people” Reagan routine for the clowns on the right who eat
this bull@#shi@t up.
(Aside, at one of Reagan’s Oregon campaign stops, someone hung a sign around a tree that read “Stop me before I kill again.”
The factual answer to Dodd is very simply stated in the first post, deep water is where the oil is…the shallow waters are largely tapped out.
The point loons on the right don’t get is that today’s average CAFE MPG for cars is the exact same as it was in the mid 80s and as much as the liberals will hate to hear this, the last president to raise these standards was a certain Mr. Reagan (although Clinton tried to raise the standard but congress rebuffed his attempts.)
Hear is a stat from my friend at Toyota, if everyone drove a hybrid engine car like a Prius, we could cut our oil imports by HALF
Thought experiment: I wondered what it would have been like during WW2 if the whack job conservatives like Palin and the teabaggers would have been around during the war..it would have gone something like this….
WAVY SCREEN….GOING BACK IN TIME….1942….
Headline: FDR to ration gas and other essential material to defeat Nazis and Japs…..
Reaction by Sarah Palin teabagger type…”Ya know, there goes that socialist FDR again…
ruining the free markets on some whim to win a war…doncha know that this is the first step on the road to our total doom as a country….”
UPI reports that the Roberts court responding to a lawsuit has ruled FDR’s edicts to control wages and prices under the War Production Board and to ration commodities is unconstitutional.
1944, this just in: GERMANS WIN THE WAR. JERRIES OVERRUN UNDERSUPPLIED ALLLIES AS SHORTAGE OF TANKS CAUSES SURRENDER.
WAVY LINES…..BACK TO THE PRESENT…..
Whew, sure glad that was a nightmare…thank God conservative shi^%t heads and their insane free market uber alles policies were destroyed by all those socialist New Deal regulations guaranteeing some control of the reckless greed which almost destroyed the U.S. in the twenties.
Wait, whats that? Oh, environmentalists caused that gaping hole to spew out the black poison from deep underground?
Palin and cronies are doing what the Nazi’s couldn’t do…viz, slowly kill this country, not with weapons but with sheer stupidity and ignorance.
“one would really do better just to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt.”
Good advice….for Sarah Palin.
Even if Palin was right here…is this the ‘stopped clock is right twice a day” right? Or “studied the issue, weighed the evidence” right? She probably just asked Todd. Or looked down at her “WWBPD” bracelet.
Oh. My. Gosh. Another zero-content post from the Doddster.
He could have engaged on the relationship between oil price and offshore drilling, or with the reliability of EIA predictions at Econbrowser, but the best he’s got is that those glasses in the 80×80 pix snap aren’t exactly tortoise shells. Aw snap!
For the record, I said above:
Dodd’s answer was that I’m mean, and so he wins.
lol…………… you really are a rabid ****head ain’t ya? No matter how much kool aid you drink the thirst just won’t go away?