Controlled Chaos

Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped. The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats. One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out: I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible. Stephen Simon amplified: Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments. To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day. Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else: Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we. Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others. Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes. The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently: While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations. Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people. Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market. According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record. When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies. As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources. The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development. Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence: HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America's $22 billion of proven reserves. HOFMEISTER: Not at all. HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it? HOFMEISTER: That's correct. HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel? HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation... HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area. HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand. HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit. HOFMEISTER: I believe we could. HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures. HOFMEISTER: Yes. HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado. HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer. The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs. Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) Well it's been pretty obvious they really like Masset and the work he's done this year, and we've seen him a few times in the 6th and 7th now. By doing this, you can send Wassermann back to triple a, give the spot Masset used to have (long relief) to Loaiza, and use Masset in the 6th or 7th if you need him or if Dotel needs a night off. Makes sense to me. QFT...couldn't have been more right on. To make room for Loaiza on the 25-man roster, the Sox optioned reliever Ehren Wasserman to Class AAA Charlotte. Loaiza takes his spot in the bullpen. "Just protection,'' White Sox general manager Kenny Williams said of his latest Loaiza addition. "One thing that (manager) Ozzie (Guillen) and Coop (pitching coach Don Cooper) expressed to me a couple of weeks ago was a desire to maybe move Nick Masset into a little bit more prominent role in the back of the bullpen on days when (Scott) Linebrink or (Octavio) Dotel may not be available. "We've obviously gained a lot of confidence in Nick's ability to get big outs and throw groundballs and get us double-play situations.'' Loaiza was 1-2 with a 5.63 ERA in seven games (3 starts) with the Dodgers this season before the Sox claimed him off waivers. The right-hander was in uniform Wednesday night against the Royals. "My concern was the bullpen, the way we were using it,'' White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said. "We've got to protect our pitchers the best we can. Loaiza can do both. He's going to be the long man and an emergency starter. That's the way we're going to start with him. That will give us an opportunity to use Masset more. Because the way Masset is pitching, I think we should use him a little bit more.''

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 11:20 AM) I disagree . Cabrera=05 Uribe and I think that is being kind to Juan. They both bring different things to the table besides their .250 avgs and stellar Defense. Cabrera brings speed and 05 Uribe brings Power. Sorry for the confusion, I was only speaking defensively. I don't think Cabrera = Juan in that department.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 11:01 AM) Outside if Quentin > Pods and Paulie/AJ being essentially the same, I disagree. Crede already has more errors this year than he did in '05, '08 Cabrera is a drop-off from '05 Uribe, Rowand was a much better CF three years ago than Swisher is now (although BA is better than '05 Rowand, IMO), and Dye has lost range in RF. I also wouldn't say that Alexei is better than '05 Iguchi. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Sox are defensively "bad" this year. But they were EXCELLENT three years ago, and I don't think that the current group is at that level. I think the expectations I had of Swisher were he wasn't going to be a good CF, but I think he has been real solid out there. If he's not equal, I think he's pretty close to Rowands level. IMO, Alexei does everything just as good if not better than Gooch and his gun puts him over the top.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 10:44 AM) One team could also successfully execute a bunt and hit with RISP. I like the Sox's chances this year, but they lack the funamentals (and defense) that the '05 squad had. I think this team is far better defensively. Agree 100% on the fundamentals... Quentin>Pods Swisher=Rowand Dye=Dye maybe lost a bit...but I don't think enough to warrant him being much worse than his 05 self Crede=Crede maybe lost a bit...but I don't think enough to warrant him being much worse than his 05 self Cabrera Alexei>Iguchi Paul=Paul AJ=AJ

WOOHOOO....Lets get the

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 05:06 PM) Saying Obama has gone purely on appearance is just ridiculous. His campaign has shown no less, and in fact I think more, substance, than McCain's has. Now, McCain has much more EXPERIENCE than Obama, obviously. But as far as campaign substance - policy statements, plans for action, issue stances... Obama and McCain are pretty close, IMO, and Obama has a slight edge. He has not shown who he really is. He has not been on the campaign trail...pushing the far left ideals he has pushed for his whole life. He is the most liberal Senator in the bunch. I'm not sure, but I think most are in agreement on that, and you just don't hear that when listening to him preach. Barack does the oratorical fireworks show with the best of them...but at some point...he is going to have to run on his record. Unless the whole CHANGE thing is really about him changing his lifelong beliefs and coming to the center, but I don't think so. As for Trinity and Wright/Pflegher, I don't think it has been beat to death. Those churches and pastors in the minds of myself and many others...are driving a wedge in the race relations in this country. Many people have fought hard to blur the divide, and those churches basically preach separatism and his wife's thesis is along those lines as well. That topic is very much alive. Oh and if he does win there's no way he pardons Rezko.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 5, 2008 -> 07:52 AM) After last season? Swisher wasn't on the team last season, Thome hit .275/.410/.563/.973 last year, Konerko hit .259/.351/.490/.841. If anything, 2007 should give you some confidence that these guys are VERY likely to get significantly better as the season goes on. Stop making sense!!!!! One thing I learned about 2005 is some people just can't emotionally invest themselves in something. Buehrle has been far from dominant, but his track record shows he'll probably end up the same old Mark. He does have 7 starts where he's given up 3 or less and he's also been very unlucky, to say the least, on more than one occasion. Count..ok he's up there in age...but what has he done at all this year to have anyone doubt him. He's been ridiculously good. Floyd...hmmm.... not even worth commenting on. Yes, some people will be concerned about this pitching....but if they're worried about that...they should just be worried about everything. They should be worried about Q slipping on a banana peel in the dugout. They should worry about a seed flying out of Ozzies mouth and hitting Jenks in the eye. They should worry about a blister forming on Alexei's hand from bare handing so many grounders. They should worry about Just a shout out to my buster peeps!! There's a ton of s*** people can worry about, or they can just enjoy the ride and stop looking for misfortune where it hasn't even presented itself.

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 11:39 PM) lets get a mention here for Alexei's defense as well. game saver with DeJesus flying down the line. I was just about to post What about Lexi? His D was huge last night. If Juan wasn't aware of his Utility status...consider him informed! Great Win!!

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 04:06 PM) Yeah, I get that it doesn't matter in the scheme of what was being demonstrated. But then someone in the thread asked who and still get the right cound, and I wondered how we would know if the right count (I got 16) was never revealed. And btw, seeing the tuttifruity cosmically empowered sorts of websites Chaos frequents, I think he's going to have to change his handle from ControlledChaos to MoonbeamCrystalpower or something like that. haha...I received it in an email...but MoonbeamCrystalpower is kinda catchy. For the record, I counted 18...actually if you count the half pass right when the vid stops it would be 19. I just assumed I was right because I was so focused on the passing.

Walker just sounded pretty dam pissed in an interview

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) As fans what fish should we be frying exactly? What resources are we wasting on supporting Quentin's All-Star bid that we could be allocating eleewhere? Catfish is good for frying...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) The wife and I went to Ruth Chris in Toronto on our honeymoon. That might be a perfect thing for our rapidly approaching anniversary. Sounds perfect to me...pretty romantic if you haven't been back since your honeymoon.... Afterwards you can really pile on the romance by taking her to the sox game

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 01:59 PM) sd makes my rotation of sites visited. I would say I saved a few grand on Christmas Shopping,entertainment,other online shopping ect in the last year or so. same here...except I blow what I save buying s*** I don't really need...just cause it's a great price....

QUOTE (rangercal @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 01:48 PM) you must be a slickdealer yep...just thought I'd spread the love

If you're interested... Mortons $99 for two Ruth's Chris $89 for two

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 12:26 PM) Really, I hadn't heard that? me either...

So the question to those that noticed it? Did you get the count on # of passes correct or did you stop counting when you saw it?

SWEEP THE LEG!!!!!!!! DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT CHICAGO WHITE SOX??? NO MERCY!!!!!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) That's crazy....I didn't notice anything the first time... me either...

QUOTE (north side chi sox fan @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 11:06 AM) Is there a link sayin he signed with SOX? Steff said so...that's all you need man!!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 09:31 AM) You would think. He canNOT pander to the right wing idiots and win the election. I don't understand why common sense can't win an election anymore. McCain won't pander to the far right...he doesn't need to. I think Obama's record is enough to guarantee that everyone on the right....from off the charts wackos to moderately right, will not vote for him...and they won't sit home either and let the country go to someone who is the polar opposite of themselves. McCain has to worry about the down the center folks and even slightly left. It's time to move past the fancy preaching rhetoric and on to his record....which is pretty much right in line with the wacko left....

http://transformationteam.net/video/perceptual_experiment_tc

Irrelevant apologies By Thomas Sowell It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church. For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election. Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations. Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger. In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association. Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before? The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues." There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it. There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn. That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home. Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq. Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government. Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York. You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it. Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others. But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world— including the United States on 9/11. Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East? Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them? Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Jun 4, 2008 -> 07:52 AM) I am not a fan of greg, however you can't blame him for being upset. Dangling anyones job in the press will piss off anyone. In my view, if you have come to the conclusion to do something, then you do it. You don't use the press the threaten. Nothing is accomplished with that. I don't think Ozzie meant anything by it...and I'm sure it's water under the bridge now.