“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Jenna Bush, Keeping Up Family Traditions (UPDATE)

They will be missed by the Democrats

George Bush did more to wreck the Republican Party than any Democrat could even dream possible. I guess it is appropriate that one of his less than gifted daughters would continue the process.

UPDATE ( hat tip gag reflex): Look at the tape. She did not say what CNN said she did. I will leave my original post so that everyone can see how wrong I was about the girl. 
Speaking on Larry King Live last night, first daughter Jenna Bush, who appeared alongside first lady Laura Bush, confessed that she's not sure if she'll vote for the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Sen. John McCain, and even left open the possibility that she'd support either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton.
CNN


83 comments:

  1. George has raised an independent, free thinking daughter there. Give the women the vote, you neve know what they'll do!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jenna Bush is female. McCain told South Carolina voters he would overturn Roe v. Wade. He opposes sex education and making birth control affordable for the very poor. He calls earmarks for breast cancer research "garden variety pork". So, uh, you boys can have him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He opposes sex education and making birth control affordable for the very poor.

    I don't know if that is really true,(I doubt it is, what politician today is going to be against a pack of rubbers, and an instruction sheet?) but if you say so. A good way of being 'against Roe' is to provide sex ed, so as to avoid the problem.

    I'm not in the business of being a champion for McCain. We don't have a good, much less great, candidate in the race, at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Her father is titular head of the Republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Consider all of the terrible things that have happened in this country since women were given the right to vote. This indicates what can be "proven" with statistics. Most women's feet are shorter than those of the average male. This enables them to get closer to the sink when doing women work like the dishes. Since the invention of the automatic dishwasher women's feet have been getting longer.
    Deuce this grace period on my bar tab is messing with my cranial equilibrium.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jenna has nice fingernails, among other attributes.

    No burka for her. A free thinking independent republican raised American female. Nice smile. No obvious underarm hair. Nice other stuff.

    Can't get a read on the feet length.

    All in all, not bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder what Laura said about all this maybe breaking ranks with the party, by her daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Since the invention of the automatic dishwasher women's feet have been getting longer.

    hmmm, this doesn't sound so good. Is there any limit to this phenomena?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'm not in the business of being a champion for McCain."

    Probably the only man in the country who could sell the reinvigoration of covert operations.

    What's not to like?

    ReplyDelete
  10. After all the shit Republicans have put up with over eight years with THAT GUY, NOW you wanna get all choosey and principled over McCain?






    Spare me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm thinking it over.

    What real choice do I have?

    I haven't even voted yet.

    We're still arguing about who can vote in the republican primary, here. Last I heard the issue was still in the courts.

    What's McCain's position on the automatic dishwasher? What will he do to stop the spreading noise of flapping female feet?

    As a guy that rents a few apartments, I can tell you the ladies always look for two things first, that auto dishwasher, and the built in washer/dryer.

    I have also learned that females make the better tenants, especially so if they got a rich mom in Boise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hell, let's face it, I've despised Democrats for forty years; and, I'll be voting for one in Nov.

    Both Democratic Candidates are, I believe, despicable people; but, at least, they're not "Crazy."

    ReplyDelete
  13. To what actions of the Senator's do you attach "crazy," rufus?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I just think the old bastard is mentally deficient. And, at his age it can only get worse.

    I guess the thing that concerns me most is he seems to have no inkling of the mess we've got coming in Energy.

    He's totally bought into a bogus CO2/AGW story, and missed the epochal challenge.

    The Scariest Chart I've Ever Seen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Back to the subject, below is the transcript. The Clinton News Network is just up to it's old National Inquirer ways:

    KING: Do you have a favorite between the two, the two Democrats?

    LAURA BUSH: My favorite is the Republican.

    KING (pointing to Jenna): Yours too, I would imagine.

    JENNA BUSH: I don't know.

    KING: A-ha! Are you open to...

    JENNA BUSH: Yeah, of course. I mean, who isn't open to learning about the candidates and I'm sure that everybody's like that.

    Tell me where it says she won't vote for McCain and she might vote for Obama or Hillary??

    ReplyDelete
  16. Always vote for the despicable over the crazy.

    :)

    As crazy as that sounds at first hearing, you might be right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sounds like Jenna gave a good answer.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I like crazy better as it can be controlled by medication. Despicable? unh uh

    ReplyDelete
  19. The thing you've got to remember about John McCain is he's, essentially, a Souther Democrat with all that that entails.

    If I'm going to be governed by a Democrat I want the Dems to get the blame. Look, Dangit; we're either going to have a Democrat this year, or four years from now. We might as well take our medicine and get it over with now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. rufus, your scary chart is tracking exports of the top twenty exporters only, and shows only about half of total world oil production. How about a look at total fuel liquids? Not so scary.

    ReplyDelete
  21. What makes you think he's mentally deficient, rufus?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Trish:

    What makes you think he's mentally deficient, rufus?

    McCain

    ReplyDelete
  23. T, the top twenty is 95% of exports.

    Your total liquids chart includes natural gas liquids (we've had a surge in those, as you get a spike when an oil field is topping out,) refinery gains, and ethanol.

    If you're an importing nation (we're, by far, the biggest) it doesn't matter if the Gulf States produces a bit more (or less,) but How Much They Export! With Demand Exploding in China, India, and the Middle East, and production at a temporary plateau (before the plunge) it is Definitely not Business As Usual.

    This is a Monster Freight Train, folks. The World is getting ready to change. And, it doesn't care if you're ready, or Not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How do you make the "President" take his meds if he doesn't think he's "Crazy?"

    I just don't think he's very intelligent. Anyone who signs onto the AGW story (that doesn't have to) just can't be very bright in my book. And, then, back it up with total obliviousness to the most compelling challenge of our time? I cain't get on board.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So. It's not that he's "crazy." It's not that he's "mentally deficient." And it's not that he's a southern Democrat.

    It's that there's this monster freight train...and, if I may, McCain is uniquely ill-equipped to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Guess what, i just listened to the tape and posted topside. She did not say it! I burned the girl by accident!

    hat tip Gag reflex

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tony Blair's big deal was Global Warming. We oozed all over him, did we not? There was, in fact, some speculation of a tit-for-tat in this regard between Bush and Blair in re Iraq and...Tony's pet project.

    ReplyDelete
  28. One thing that is really bugging me about this new computor which works great for the most part, is the speakers are terrible.

    Did Jenna say,
    I've been too busy, with my nose in books?

    If so, that's a good sign. There are other things than politics, if she means it, which she might not.

    I like the Bush gals though, mother and daughers, particularily the mom. I think she's a good person, down deep.

    The image of Mrs. Heinz Kerrey comes to mind, as counterpart. Yuk.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The admin was in the global warming (legislation) headlines just week before last.








    In case anyone is interested.

    ReplyDelete
  30. We made allowances for "Uncle Joe" when he was an "Ally," also. That didn't mean that Communism was a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The one thing I like about Obama, magician that he is, I have heard him say 'nuclear power'. He seems not to have a hangup on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Bush's, supposedly, value "loyalty" very highly. McCain drove Dubya nuts. I doubt very seriously that Jenna will vote for Crazy John.

    As for me: I'm just afraid of the guy. I would rather have a competent socialist than an incompetent, wannabe democrat. There are probably a few others like me. Probably, very, very few. It' doubtful it'll cost him the election.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Bush is just "stallin the ball" until it becomes obvious that we're going into a solar-induced period of cooling.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Here we go (NTY):

    April 14, 2008, 2:23 pm
    President Appears to Seek a Warming Legacy

    By Andrew C. Revkin
    President BushPresident Bush signed an energy bill in December. He may be seeking a climate bill now. (Charles Dharapak/Associated Press)

    Both at home and overseas, there are signs that the White House — after seven years of charges that it was failing to accept and act on science pointing to dangerous human-caused climate change — is aiming to repair its legacy on the issue. Trial balloons are lofting and swirling.

    According to the Washington Times today, the White House reached out last week to Republican lawmakers to test whether Mr. Bush could get support for domestic legislation on climate. So far, the only bills put forward aiming to limit greenhouse gases have come from Democrats and a handful of moderate Republicans, most notably Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and presidential candidate.

    According to the article, by Stephen Dinan:

    Bush administration officials have told Republicans in Congress that they feel pressure to act now because they fear a coming regulatory nightmare. It would be the first time Mr. Bush has called for statutory authority on the subject. “This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something,” said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week.

    The story indicated that the proposal was strongly rebuffed by Republican congressional leaders.

    In Europe, in the meantime, there have been some hints that the Bush administration is closing in on a specific long-term goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions — possibly 50 percent by 2050. European leaders have proposed a similar cut, but from a baseline of 1990. It’s not clear yet what the final number might be. (China and India have to agree, as well.) President Bush last year pledged to extract a long-term goal from this group of countries by the end of this year, and his term.

    The third round of talks comes in Paris Thursday and Friday. If specific numbers emerge, this would be the first hint of a particular (if non-binding) target and timetable. The talks are independent from the ongoing United Nations treaty negotiations on climate. The White House has also signaled recently that it would be willing to sign a treaty containing binding restrictions on greenhouse gases — if China signs on as well.

    Back in Washington, Chris Horner, a lawyer for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group opposing regulatory solutions to environmental problems, told me that the outreach to Congress on possible legislation “smacks of desperation.” Those in the administration seeking to build a positive legacy on the issue, he said, “cannot seem to recognize a Congress that is terrified of being the ones saddled with hitting the economy as it enters recession and with the voters already sharpening the pitchforks over $3 gas, just to say to a noisy minority they ‘did something’ (which, of course, would be doing nothing at all under any scenario or set of assumptions)….”

    ReplyDelete
  35. A competent socialist?

    We're gonna raise your taxes till you squeek, we're gonna regulate everything, we're gonna make it so you can't take a crap in your own outhouse without a permit. We're gonna create a government that really does master you.

    And we're gonna do all this based on uncertain science, fear, and rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  36. We're gonna tax the passage of time itself.

    We're gonna put you out of business, bob.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And, McCain is different, how?

    Deuce, in my estimation, the only difference in McCrazy, and Hillababama is: McCrazy can get more of this crazy shit passed.

    And, then, the Pubs get blamed.

    ReplyDelete
  38. An unpleasant bleak future. We'll all be out of business no matter who wins.

    The government has an unending desire for money. Just a couple of items--New York wants an internet tax on sales, California is talking about a tax on internet music trades.

    What the hell? If I want to sell Rufus a pound of Idaho dirt, and if he wants for some reason to buy it, the government wants in the middle of it. On everything.

    Always looking for an opening to tax. Always.

    ReplyDelete
  39. McCALL -- Near-record snowfall and low spring temperatures are creating ideal conditions at Brundage Mountain Resort. Resort officials announced today that they will be open for a third bonus weekend in May.

    The resort is currently closed on weekdays, and had planned this Saturday and Sunday to be the final ski weekend of the season, but that was before 10 inches of fresh powder fell this week. Now, resort managers have decided to be open on May 3rd and 4th.

    “Mother Nature has been extremely kind to us this year,” said resort spokesperson April Russell. “And our loyal visitors have shown that they are still interested in skiing and riding on the best snow in Idaho.”

    Resort operators are keeping a close watch on Mother Nature and customer interest to decide if additional weekends in May are possible.

    This is the first time Brundage Mountain has ever offered lift service in the month of May.

    Brundage Mountain has received 422 inches of snowfall this season. That makes this the second snowiest winter on record.

    Pic of Brundage

    ReplyDelete
  40. "And, McCain is different, how?"

    See, the question is, rufus: And, Bush is different, how?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The government has an unending desire for money."

    WERE it about money.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The University of Santa Cruz(aka Santa Crazy) has made a big score of memorablia from the Grateful Dead. Going to put it on display. Big cultural deal.

    Michael Savage says just hang the skeletons in trees.

    This is what our universities have become? For this we pay taxes?

    The Grateful Dead Exhibit.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm continually surprised - sometimes flabbergasted - that those who have spent that past seven years pooh-poohing every foray, every detour, every straight, happy march on the part of this administration into BIG FUCKING GOVERNMENT territory, have a problem with McCain.

    Did you think Jonah Goldberg was kidding when he remarked that Bush is a conservative because he says he is?

    You've handed out passes for egregious conservative misbehavior for the better part of a decade, while you got strategically screwed in the war...even better, SO THAT you could get strategically screwed, and suddenly you've rediscovered what? Conservative principles?

    I'd no more buy that than swampland for a condo.

    But I'll be damned if you don't pat yourselves on the back all the way to losing the WH.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dubya ain't on the ticket; but, yes, as mad at him as I am over immigration, I'd vote for him again.

    He cut taxes (something McCrazy opposed,) he protected the oil, he opened trade, and he got us started in alternative energy (something the Saudis hate.)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh, did I mention telling the Russians (world) to stuff it on ABM, and developing Missile Defense, or telling the Euros (world) to fuck off with Kyoto?

    I even liked "no child left behind."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rufus: Oh, did I mention telling the Russians (world) to stuff it on ABM, and developing Missile Defense, or telling the Euros (world) to fuck off with Kyoto?

    On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol. Gore and Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

    Over the next few years there was no participation by the developing nations.

    On January 20, 2001, President Bush was sworn into office and immediately became Bush the Terrorist War Criminal Unilateralist Planet Raper for ignoring Kyoto.

    ReplyDelete
  47. T, wasn't there a "sense of the Senate," or some such, that went 95-0 Against acting on Kyoto?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The 2007 Dohrn-Ayers Videos
    Guy Benson is the young producer that dug up the 2007 tape of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn speaking at an SDS reunion, adio of which debuted on the Sandy Rios Show which Guy produces, then on my show, Hannity & Colmes, Laura Ingraham.

    Some of My Best Friends Are Liberals. None of Them Are Terrorists.
    My column today provides the key links.

    Benson has now posted a column analyzing Senator Obama's responses to the Obama-Ayers-Dohrn connections.
    Read the whole thing.
    - Hewitt
    ----
    Los Angeles 'is a Third World city'

    Los Angeles is becoming a "Third World city" with immigrants making up half its workforce, says a new study.
    A third of immigrants have not graduated from high school and 60 per cent do not speak English fluently, the Migration Policy Institute found.

    It said this left immigrants ill-equipped to fill California's fastest-growing occupations, such as computer software engineering and nursing. The organisation added that as the so-called baby boomers reach retirement age, a similar pattern will spread across the US.

    Ernesto Cortes Jr, of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a think-tank that specialises on social change, claimed Los Angeles was at a crossroads.
    "The question is are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third World city with an elite group on top and most on near poverty wages?" he said.

    ReplyDelete
  49. To keep my eye on things I signed up for newsletters etc from various campaigns.

    From A to
    Z, from left to right, man what a bunch of panhandlers!

    Another term that might be used to describe our politicians is beggers.

    Anything you can give would be of help, fellow patriot. The fate of the nation depends on you.

    I never thought I was so important.

    But I realize that's the way we do things here, and, it beats the Russian way, I quess.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The world's policeman may come home. Article on that big oil find(s) off Brazil.

    They might miss us, article speculates.

    And the girls down Brazil way don't wear burkas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ``We could see that world becoming a very violent one,'' said Zeihan, former chief of Middle East and East Asia analysis for Strategic Forecasting. ``If the United States isn't getting any crude from the Gulf, what benefit does it have in policing the Gulf anymore? All of the geopolitical flux that wracks that region regularly suddenly isn't our problem.''

    As if it's not violent now.


    ``The finds they've got so far are just the tip of the iceberg,'' Zeihan said. ``Brazil is going to change the balance of the global oil markets, and Petrobras will become a geopolitical supermajor.'

    ReplyDelete
  52. One hopes Brazil can handle the good fortune, and not become a victim of the curse of the oil wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Talkin' 2020, before they would create a major impact in the gobal geopolitical game.

    2,700,000 barrels per day, would relace the Persian Gulf imports from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.

    About what Mexico and Canada, combined, supply.

    The Americas, amigos.

    United.

    Spreading the inalienable rights of man.

    The Revolution Lives!

    Viva La Revolution!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Mexico will, almost certainly, be out of the oil "exporting" game well before 2020.

    ReplyDelete
  55. When do you think that Mexico will cease to export at the million barrel per day level, rufus?

    Hpw fast will their proven reserves and production fall off, after that?

    ReplyDelete
  56. You see, like many other exporting countries, Mexico's production is falling rapidly, and their consumption is rising. Put that together and it's the proverbial "double whammy."

    As for Brazil's find: There is a lot of oil there; but, it's spread out over a very wide area, and, man, is it going to be a booger to get to. It's about seven miles down, I think, under a two-mile(?) layer of salt. No one has ever drilled a well like this (right now they have no idea how to drill through a thick layer of salt. It's gonna be a bitch.)

    They'll probably get it out; but it won't be easy, and it sure as heck won't be tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The White House has finally revealed what they knew about the Israeli airstrike on Syria recently that flattened a nuclear reactor. They said that it was a type that only North Korea has built in the last 35 years. Syria, of course, is making like Sergeant Schultz, "I know nothing! Nothing!" This seems to be a move to pressure Korea to "close the deal" in the negotiations to deactivate their nuclear program.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rat, I think Jeffrey Brown is putting the drop-dead for exports date at somewhere around 2016.

    As I said; "It's NOT just about the production. It's equally their own increased production.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The 2016 date was for Mexico, Not the world, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Their increased consumption, I think is your point

    2016.

    Looks like things will be gettin' tough all over.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rufus: Mexico will, almost certainly, be out of the oil "exporting" game well before 2020.

    http://www.reason.com...36645.html


    An 1855 advertisement for Kier’s Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before “this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory.”

    In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years.

    During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years.



    Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  62. If you factor out Mexico's and Venezuela's production from US imports, we'll be in a world of hurt, if ethanol production is only 15 biliion gallons per year.

    375 milliom barrels, annually
    That amount covers what Hugo's been selling US, but that's all.

    Mexico accounts for even more than that, currently. Well over another 400 millon barrels of ethanol will be needed, by 2016.

    An intersting site from Kansas:

    2007 ethanol production was 6.5 billion gallons requiring 3.2 billion bushels

    ReplyDelete
  63. Post hoc ergo wergo hock.
    (horse pucky)
    ...as if we don't have better methods of determining oil reserves.

    ...as if Rufus's point about EVERYONE using oil now weren't true.

    PURE horse pucky!

    ReplyDelete
  64. (To the latin scholar terisita, obviously)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Exactly, doug.

    As the Mexian per capita GDP approaches the targeted $25,000 per annum, their consumption levels will be increasing, exponentially.

    ReplyDelete
  66. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ethanol yields 1.64 units of energy for each unit of energy it took to produce. That compares to just 0.8 units of energy from gasoline.
    ---
    What is that .8 units figure?
    Is that the energy in the oil, minus the energy to refine?
    Rufus, come quick!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Seven miles down? Wow.

    But on bright side I'd bet only our guys could do that. Go down seven miles. They better write up some iron tight contracts, though, or the next strongman will nationalize it all.

    If it's way out in the ocean, just whose oil is it? What's happened to that new law of the sea treaty? I wonder if that might be beneficial to us in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  68. PURE horse pucky!

    Can a fuel be made of this? What about PURE elephant pucky? If we at the bar combined our puckies, we might do well, as we all seem to see a lot of it around here, left by other people.:)

    ReplyDelete
  69. I've looked at Jenna's right hand a few times now. Is that a modified Victory sign, an Italian F**k You sign, or an imitation of the Playboy Bunny Logo? Or, maybe the Buy sign in the oil trading pit? Or maybe all four?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Ever since I learned what that lesbo one means, I try not to think.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rat, somehow they got a little balled up (made a type, maybe) in their bushels used figure. The 6.5 billion gallons produced figure is about right; but they got about 2.8 gallons/bushel in 07' which would come out to about 2.3 Billion bushels.

    Of course for every bushel used you get back about 40% of your cattle feeding potential in the form of distillers grains, so the real corn usage would be approx. .60 X 2.3 = 1.38 billion bushels.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Is that the energy in the oil, minus the energy to refine?

    Yeah, Doug. Find, transport, refine, etc.

    EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) is kind of a tricky calculation. Let me give you an ex:

    Latest tests have shown that a newer car will get almost exactly the same mileage with a ten, or twenty percent blend of ethanol as with straight gasoline (in fact, 3 out of the 4 cars tested got better mileage with an e20, or e30 blend than they did with straight unleaded.)

    BTW, 99% of all ethanol is used in a ten (or less) percent blend.

    So, when figuring EROEI do we figure ethanol's 76,000 btus, or gasoline's 116,000 btus? If I use best practices from different refineries, and the higher gasoline number I can come up with a pretty spiffy number that's close to 5:1 EROEI. That beats the Holy Bejeebus out of the 1.64:1 number that USDA comes out with when they average all older plants into the mix, and don't allow for distillers grains, best practices, and the work that ethanol can actually accomplish.

    Nuttin's simple in this world, Right? By the way, here's a good article on research on the state of efficiency of the ethanol industry to date conducted by Argonne Labs. It shows the wide disparity between the older plants, and the newer ones that are coming online.

    Efficiency

    ReplyDelete
  73. T, Doug is right. We are much, much, ten thousand times better, now, at predicting ultimate reserves of reservoirs than we were back then.

    Back in 1956, when King Hubbert predicted the U.S. would peak in 1972 there was widespread ballyhooing, and derision. In nineteen seventy two the U.S. peaked. His method of analysis is pretty much the gospel to this day. The only difference being that the offshore fields have a considerably shorter lifespan than the traditional fields he worked on.

    I'm not saying that we won't have a year, or so, in the next couple with a slightly higher production than today. We probably will. There are some projects slated to come online this year, and next. The thing is: It takes many years to get a modern project up and running, and the pipeline is, essentially, bare after 2009. It's really looking pretty grim starting pretty soon.

    One other thing: The world's MSM ignored it the other day when the Saudi King stated that they were going to hold some production back for the chilluns, and grand chilluns.

    What he's basically saying is that they are perfectly happy with their nine and a half million bpd, and any new "Capacity" will be held in reserve. Think about that for a bit. One other thing: The ME States are increasing their consumption as fast as China, and faster than India. Also, Russia has, recently, started declining. And, the North Sea is Plunging. It ain't pretty.

    Doug: Did you notice? I missed my $120.00 barrel call by $0.10. Maybe next time, eh? :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. McCain sucks, Obama and Hillary suck more - next question.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think that about sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rufus: T, Doug is right. We are much, much, ten thousand times better, now, at predicting ultimate reserves of reservoirs than we were back then.

    I'm not a peaker. We're getting the easy stuff out now. With this level of oil profits being pumped back into exploration, etc, more fields will come on line, and when old fields get be wrung dry prices will rise to meet the challenge of getting the harder stuff out of the ground. In short, I don't worry about things which might happen, I adapt to things which have happened. It's an American trait.

    ReplyDelete
  77. No, T. I made the $120.00 call when prices were at $85.00. How much do you think that was worth? I extrapolated out to get Deere, and Monsanto when they were half of their present price.

    THAT'S the Real "American" Trait.

    ReplyDelete