Many here might wonder why Obama would loan 10 billion U.S. dollars to Petrobras to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil when he opposes such drilling here in the United States.

Could it be the $811 million dollar investment that George Soros placed in Petrobras stock in the 2nd quarter of this year?

"Soros Hedge Fund Bought Petrobras Stake Worth $811 Million"

Obama and Soros are as corrupt as they come. This is a free lunch for Soros for financing democrat campaigns.

Both should be tried and sent to prison right next to Blagobitch.

Hypocrite...

Some other rightoid posted this the other day, think it was either Nanc or Murphy.

This rig starts a two year contract with Petrobras this coming Februrary

Personally, I think ANY drilling is a fantastic idea.

Fossil fuels rock!

I am dead serious.

I'm doing my best, Jeff!

I'm doing my best, Jeff!

I know.

You posted some very good pics from the rig recently, although those pics sucked ass when compared with older pics of a big pot of chili, suspended over a live fire on a tripod.

That would be the one, Goat.

It totally shames your rig pics.

Goat is that good? It looks like vomit in a kettle.

#11 | Posted by jackass

I take tremendous pride on my chili.

It's construction is a 2-day event in the JeffJ household.

Yet, I am absolutely envious of that pot of "vomit" that Goat photographed.

I wouldn't make it if it wasn't good ratsa

Many here might wonder why Obama would loan 10 billion U.S. dollars to Petrobras to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil when he opposes such drilling here in the United States.

#1 | Posted by buzkiller

I guess you don't keep up much on US oil reserves.

The US cannot fully sustain itself on what oil it has available domestically (barring the complete rape of the Rocky Mountains from Colorado up through Canada). The future happens despite our best efforts to hold it at bay. Canada already is in the process of sucking its portion of the Rockies dry, and is the number one exporter of both raw and finished petro products to the US. It can't last.

The Carioca oil field, though not a mega reserve a la Saudi Arabia, will be a great supplement. It is best that good relations with Brazil be maintained. US investment in the Western hemisphere is in our best interests. The US won't be good amigos with Venezuela for much longer.

Excellent factual post, Zot.

Energy-independence is bullshit rhetoric and its attempted implementation is a costly and dangerous scam.

Energy-consumption and wealth-creation are perfectly correlated. If this nation wants to continue to move forward in regards to wealth-creation then we have to accept the fact that we have to import energy.

Many here might wonder why Obama would loan 10 billion U.S. dollars to Petrobras ...

For the same reason China did it. We'll get the money back quickly in the form of oil, and the U.S. has a massive demand for oil because we haven't even begun to wean ourselves from foreign oil yet -- thanks in part to President Bush who never took energy independence seriously.

This is good news for my son's company which is bidding on a big part of that business with Petrobras.

I love black energy. It's 100 times more efficient than stupid green energy. Only dumb libs like green energy.

Some other rightoid posted this the other day, think it was either Nanc or Murphy.

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Does that make it a non-news story? Soros has half of the dem party in his pocket and is making billions by it.

The cash for clunkers will pay dividends in the form of reduced demand for petro-fuels since our daily demand for automobiles is a staggering 378 million gallons a day or 9 million barrels.

I am all for them being able to buy time to move away from fossil fuels.

If we can reduce usage to 1/4 of the current demand would be great..

Leggo,

Serious question:

What are your thoughts on corn-subsidies and ethanol-mandates?

"Only dumb libs like green energy." Good for your son. However, the dumb libs you speak about are for cleaner air, which conservatives are against. I guess that is what you mean by your statement, right or wrong? I also guess you are quite content on relying on the countries, of which all conservatives despise, commodities? Make up your mind, we either want to be dependant on these despicable countries or have nothing to do with them. I work for a company that makes bio-diesel and it has been proven to be a great alternative for diesel fuel. Many employees, who drive their diesel Chevy's or Fords, prefer the our water white biodiesel to regular diesel. I guess we all have a different perspective, but at least be honest about it. Secondly, have you upgraded to more efficient energy-saving household appliances? Those are green energy! Lastly, it has been proven that green energy saves money. Maybe you are not big on that, but millions of others enjoy it.

#1 | Posted by buzkiller

This is a BIG payoff by Obama to Soros for funding a huge part of his campaign.

"Some other rightoid posted this the other day, think it was either Nanc or Murphy."
#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

And your point is?

#21 - DO NOT ATTEMPT to reason with FWThom, aka "The Dumb Libs Guy."

"Only dumb libs like green energy."
#17 | Posted by fwthom

Not true. And conservatives are not against cleaner air. But they do not believe CO2 is a poisonous gas that needs to be taxed. They believe in improving energy technology but not at the price of bankrupting the nation. And for that the libs lie by re-shaping, stretching,twisting and mis-stating the truth to smear the conservatives and forward their agenda.

"Some other rightoid posted this the other day, think it was either Nanc or Murphy."
#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

And your point is?
#23 | Posted by KBM

That some other rightoid posted this the other day, and I think it was either Nanc or Murphy. Follow?

...the U.S. has a massive demand for oil because we haven't even begun to wean ourselves from foreign oil yet -- thanks in part to President Bush who never took energy independence seriously.

#16 | Posted by rcade

Take a look at this chart:

I'm doing my best, Jeff!

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2009-08-20 07:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Goat,

What do you think of this? Read a more in-depth article in american scientific, but this covers the basics:

#27 - Zot, you make many good points. I do think there is promise in the variety of alternative fuels. None will be a single fix, but a mix of alternatives might at least reduce our dependence on oil. Cleaner coal technology, carbon sequestration, even nuclear need to be explored. Meanwhile we'll still need plenty of oil.

I think we also need to focus on consumption and the wasteful way we build communities and daily activities around cars, making life more walkable/bikeable, making cities and towns more local-economy-oriented, reducing the use of school buses and focusing more on neighborhood schools again, etc. What are your thoughts toward that end? Any faith in passenger trains as an option to automotive travel?

"last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire."

"In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19."

So much for another rightwing delusion. But we still haven't seen Ayers birth certificate, have we?

Leggo,

Serious question:

What are your thoughts on corn-subsidies and ethanol-mandates?

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

I think its a giant give away to the corn lobby. There are viable ethanol substitutes that we can produce. Brazil uses almost 100% ethanol but they have a thriving sugar cane industry.

I do believe that we can at least reduce our imported oil usage by a third by going to ethanol
Switch grass or sugar cane would be MUCH better than corn.

The wiki on Brazil sugar cane usage..

Biofuels convert solar energy with about 1% efficiency at best; A waste of time.

Some other rightoid posted this the other day, think it was either Nanc or Murphy.

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-

notice how this issue is just 'swept' away by doc and many on the left here..
amazing isnt it?

or is anyone REALLY surprised....

and the FACT that this will put millions more into the pocket of george soros is going Basically IGNORED BY THE STATERUN MEDIA.......

another surprise?? hardly

DEMS>...its another day
and another day closer

the end is near

I think we also need to focus on consumption and the wasteful way we build communities and daily activities around cars, making life more walkable/bikeable, making cities and towns more local-economy-oriented, reducing the use of school buses and focusing more on neighborhood schools again, etc. What are your thoughts toward that end? Any faith in passenger trains as an option to automotive travel?

#29 | Posted by cbob

I have seen multiple studies on community creation that tend towards micro-townships that are self serving, that is, most everything required for living and life, schools, food, entertainment, med care, etc., is contained within the boundaries of major thru streets in a grid network. Similar in many ways to Euro villages/small towns that were not developed around the car and that most everything is within relatively short walking distance. Building these type of micro communities is logical, sensible, but expensive at the outset. Massive, colorless, rubber-stamp tract home "communities" with their wood and stick construction, four floor-plans to choose from, and three pastel paint schemes are cheap and quick to build. And have about as much personality and charm as a paper bag.

Coast to coast passenger trains are a dream that will probably never happen until the country becomes one giant coast to coast megahab. Local commuters as in seen in the NE corridor and along the Left coast make sense because of pop density. Even in those places, you still have to get to the train station by some petro-fueled method. But for long distance travel, way too expensive to implement now: in the double dig trillions.

So much for another rightwing delusion. But we still haven't seen Ayers birth certificate, have we?

#30 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-08-20

let me make sure this is the 'delusion' you speak of

lets see

obama gives loan of millions to drill offshore somewhere else but wont allow it here

and george soros stands to make millions

hmmmmmm..OH I SEE NOW....it IS a delusion isnt it???

thanks for clearing that up........

and NOT ONLY is the attempt to sweep this away like doc...notice how many of the libs are CHANGING ThE subject..

sure sign they are embarrassed to read the truth about the chosen one....

For the same reason China did it. We'll get the money back quickly in the form of oil, and the U.S. has a massive demand for oil because we haven't even begun to wean ourselves from foreign oil yet -- thanks in part to President Bush who never took energy independence seriously.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2009-08-20 09:27 AM

When Dems want to "Drill Drill Drill!!!" in other countries to keep us on foreign oil, it's OK, but when Repubs want to do it at home, not so much.

#38 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I don't care whether it's Repubs or Dems doing The Drill.

As a Good American, I say we suck the rest of the planet dry of oil first. Then we can go for ours while the rest of the planet goes dark.

hey ZOT..
spoken like a texan

let the fuckin yankees freeze in the fuckin dark....lol

obama gives loan of millions to drill offshore somewhere else but wont allow it here

I think my post from Murdoch's WSJ points out that Obama and the Dems aren't banning off-shore oil drilling.

I always thought even elementary school teachers could read, but maybe its not a requirement in Taxes....

This might be one of the only Obama "investments" that make money.

Where are all da libbies at, though, asking why we're outsourcing American jobs? Sending billions of dollars overseas so that we can buy the oil back, with profits for everyone? Matter of fact, where are the libbies at, period? Is there another Palin thread up this morning?

Where are all da libbies at, though, asking why we're outsourcing American jobs?

Brazil isn't in the US. It'd be a long commute. Get your mom to show you a map or something. I seem to remember righties shitting themselves when Communist China wanted to buy an American oil company (CONOCO?) and make jobs in America. You may want to ask your friends in the oil industry why they are spending like mad in Brazil and Australia (Exxon spent 41 billion on the Gorgon natural gas field) to supply the communists in China but doing squat in the US.

They won't even build SARAH!!'s pipeline with half a billion in welfare from her. Which pipeline, if I remember McCain's campaign claims correctly, was going to supply so much gas and oil it would be given away free.

Could it be the corporations the right worships don't give a rat's ass about the US (much like the righties themselves)?

I think it was either Nanc or Murphy. Follow?

#26 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Nobody can follow your logic.

And RIR, not to inject any reality into a rightwing whine, but, from rightwing Ibd.com:

"Second, the cash will encourage Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras, to contract with American businesses. And we aren't just talking about oil companies, but software, steel, research, environmental impact and engineering concerns, to name a few others.
When the strategic factors are brought into place, the benefits become very obvious. Four stand out.

First, the project will counteract a $10 billion Chinese investment that would otherwise make China the biggest investment player in Brazilian oil. Last March, the Chinese national oil company also offered the Brazilians $10 billion on the same project, which all told will require $30 billion in capital.

Now, it won't be just China calling the shots. And besides, our technology and way of operating are superior.

Second, it will put more oil on the global market, ensuring that energy crises and soaring crude prices won't keep whipsawing the world economy. Oil is fungible in a global market, and it doesn't matter who buys Brazil's oil. With more supply, prices should go down.

Third, the project will bring the U.S. and Brazil closer a foreign policy goal. But there are also personalities here that are pretty fortuitous for ensuring success. The Obama administration has named Tom Shannon, former assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs, as U.S. ambassador to Brazil. On policy, Shannon is a heavyweight and will ensure that U.S.-Brazil relations advance.

Fourth, new oil on the market will break the back of the region's leading troublemaker, Hugo Chavez. Venezuela sits on 100 million barrels of oil, and Chavez intends to rule for a long time. Developing Brazil's energy will give the socialist autocrat the one thing he fears competition. "

btw-why the sudden interest in American jobs RIR? You couldn't wait to kill the domestic auto industry.

I say we suck the rest of the planet dry of oil first. Then we can go for ours while the rest of the planet goes dark.

#39 | Posted by ZOT

Meanwhile, we have exported all of our money. Good plan!!!

Meanwhile, we have exported all of our money. Good plan!!!

#46 | Posted by Sniper

We'll get it all back by charging exorbitant rates and usury fees for the oil we have. See? It's a win-win.

Nobody can follow your logic.
#44 | Posted by Sniper

I realize that for you, Snoops, following the sequence I laid out is probably not unlike when you wander on down to the local zoo, find yourself a cozy berth to nestle into while spending your afternoon visting with your compadres at the monkey hous and scarf down too much ice cream too fast. But, what the hell, let's try it again, okay? (1) the story's already been posted; (2) by another denizen of the DR; (3) could've been Nanc; or (4) Murphy.

But don't worry, Snoops, tamarra's anuther day.

no light vehicle in their country runs on gas

#32 | Posted by Legio

True. But they also, per capita, only consume 1/16 of the energy this country does. Can you imagine our populace limiting its commute time to once every other week?

If ethanol were to totatlly displace oil in this country we'd have to convert not only 100% of existing farmland (about 400 million acres) but dedicate another 100 million acres to the production of ethanol.

E85 yields about 25% less in efficiency because ethanol has about a 30% lower btu-yield than petrol. Switchgrass is more expensive to convert than corn which is more expensive than sugar. If you are concerned about CO2 emmissions, when looking at the entire process (transportation of resrouce, conversion, refining, etc) ethanol is worse than crude.

And RIR, not to inject any reality into a rightwing whine, but, from rightwing Ibd.com:

#45 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-08-20 01:38 PM

Ahhh, the delicious irony of NG3 going to what I assume was Investors Business Daily (since idb.com is some internet bandwidth site) to defend an Obamba policy...I guarantee that if this was something the Bush admin had done, all the DR left crazy partisans would be screaming bloody fucking murder over it.

Wow.

*crickets*

btw-why the sudden interest in American jobs RIR? You couldn't wait to kill the domestic auto industry.

#45 | Posted by northguy3

* * * *

Hysterical. Now that the libbies have discovered the virtues of international trade, I guess we can finally get them to shut their pieholes about it. Hopefully.

The domestic auto industry is somewhat alive and well. I remember being pilloried here by you and other assorted dumbassess when I said that GM should go bankrupt. $30 billion wasted later, then they did, and now they're coming out stronger than ever, with debts wiped away. What's more, look down south and you'll see that the auto industry has been doing just fine, thanks much. Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW. A lot of Americans work there.

Drill baby drill! For once Obama might actually be on to something. And it's got the libbies confused, now spouting rhetoric on the virtues of globalization.

I'll be back later, when Colbert and Air America figure out what the talking points are going to be.

Can't drill here but we can borrow the money from the Chinese to loan to the Brazillans. Wunnerful.

Obama to Chinese, just put it on our bill. We're good for it.

E85 yields about 25% less in efficiency because ethanol has about a 30% lower btu-yield than petrol. Switchgrass is more expensive to convert than corn which is more expensive than sugar. If you are concerned about CO2 emmissions, when looking at the entire process (transportation of resrouce, conversion, refining, etc) ethanol is worse than crude.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

I don't disagree.. I have no illusions ETOH is a panacea to our foreign oil dependence.

I agree with Zat regarding solar energy.. We keep going down the same road hoping something will change.

Soros just looks like an evil villain, but don't blame him for teaming up with Obama to get their Brazilian bikini wax.

PETROBRAS:
The oil-based bustier company.

I agree with Zat regarding solar energy.. We keep going down the same road hoping something will change.

#54 | Posted by Legio

You are going to have a funny looking car or a long extension cord. When you consider how much oil we have in the ground, what does it matter? This carbon bullshit is just a trick for many to make big bucks at our expense. algore has made over $100 million since he lost the election. Follow the money.

#56 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-08-20 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Won't be elected to the National Academy of Sciences next year, either.

We're already past peak oil.
Denial won't help you.

"When you consider how much oil we have in the ground"

Less than half what there was 100 years ago.

The oil-based bustier company.

LOL My rig starts a contract with them in a few months. I'll have to remember that one for the company man.

thank you for reviving this post, buzkiller:

Goatman

Looks like there are a number of fellows with your same problem of finding a long enough mattress.

This website has many accessories for tall guys.
The categories shown at the top have a drop down menu.

This might be worth the investment if you could somehow manage to get it out to the rig --

Goat

For some reason that link won't go directly to the product, only to the home page.

click on the menu along the top of the home page which says "Extra long beds" and then when you see the drop down menu click on "Extend a bed""

CC Thanks for the tip, but that won't work here. Our beds are metal "wells" about 4" deep and just the length of a twin bed mattress.

Last night I shoved the mattress to the foot of the "well" and shoved 4 pillows in the gap at the head. That kind of worked.

Goat -- sounds like you worked around the problem okay. As long as you can get a good night's sleep....

We're already past peak oil.

Actually we just entered it. Look to be in peak oil for the next 10-15 years as new technologies balance declining supplies. When the new technologies can no longer keep up (10-15 years), we will be beyond peak.

During this time, we will be seeing wildly fluctuating oil prices (sound familiar?)

We are past peak oil in this country, but aren't there yet globally.

We aren't even close with natural gas, and don't even get me started on nuclear.

I undertand the argument against the unmitigated consumption of finite resources. However, energy consumption has a direct correlation with wealth, which has a direct correlation with the overall quality of human life.

"We are past peak oil in this country, but aren't there yet globally."

"We're already past peak oil."

"Actually we just entered it. Look to be in peak oil for the next 10-15 years "

LOL. Sure have a lot of "experts" here.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian

I've actually looked at the numbers.

Have you?

"Have you?"

I've seen all kinds of numbers. I don't know, and don't claim to know, whether we are pre-peak oil globally or post-peak oil.

Null,

As far as I can tell, we are far closer to peak-oil than peak natural-gas.

Going further, nuclear truly is a viable option, at least for now.

Again, I respect your conservationist position regarding finite resources. The sad fact is that wind, solar and cellulosic don't have the muster to even closely supplant our energy needs. At worst, our economy is beholden to carbon-energy, even if it's imported, and that is perfectly OK.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian

I read the trade rags because they are lying all over the place (I wouldn't otherwise)

Do you?

"Do you?"

No. No need to do that to find out what petroleum geologists are thinking.

No. No need to do that to find out what petroleum geologists are thinking.

I'm glad to see you reading more about it than opinions in a blog.

BTW, I read that same article a few months ago in a magazine here on the rig. It is pretty much in line with what most other petrogeologists say in other rags.

It is interesting as hell be able to sit across from these folks at dinner and talk about stuff like that. I repeat a lot of the more outrageous things I read here and they get a big kick out of it.

US Oil Reserves

Oil Shale --- 2 Trillion Bbls

Bakken ------ 200 Billion Bbls

ANWAR ------- 17 Billion Bbls

Coal ---- 490 Billion Tons at 1.2 Bbls/Ton (588 Billion Bbls)

This does not include any off-shore oil or any developed felds in production now.

maybe they could loan Cal a few $mil to drill

maybe they could loan Cal a few $mil to drill

It'll take a lot more than a few $m to fix that state's fucked up budget.

I saw a great show on the History channel the other week which showed all the petroleum based products we use daily. We will always need oil whether or not we find an alternative source for fuel.

I copied this from another article --

"If we were out of oil tomorrow, here is a very short list of things that would be no longer available.

Solvents
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste

This is only 144 of the over 6000 items that are manufactured using petroleum based products."

US Oil Reserves

Oil Shale --- 2 Trillion Bbls

Bakken ------ 200 Billion Bbls

ANWAR ------- 17 Billion Bbls

Coal ---- 490 Billion Tons at 1.2 Bbls/Ton (588 Billion Bbls)

This does not include any off-shore oil or any developed felds in production now.

#74 | Posted by Sniper

As far as only Dumb Libs liking green energy, I have to disagree.

I positively love the idea of competative green energy, seriously and no joke. (although I did add that nasty right wing little word "competative"...)

I also understand that CO2 is not a pollutant, so CO2 emissions is not a green issue.

But even setting aside CO2, it would be sweet to find something cleaner than we now have. Living cleaner is always a good thing, provided the cost can be kept reasonable.

how can we claim to really know global oil supply when we haven't even searched everywhere yet?

are these figures based on existing oil sites?

what about the unknown existing ones?

either way we should ween ourselves off it slowly and efficiently imo. but be very careful about what consequences rise from alternatives. including the cpi.

what about the unknown existing ones?

#80 | Posted by Yodar013

We don't know what we don't know.

What do you think? Was that a good one?

it would be sweet to find something cleaner than we now have. Living cleaner is always a good thing, provided the cost can be kept reasonable.

#79 | Posted by USAF242

Cost is a relative thing. What defines "cost?"

Dollars?

Or ecosystem degradation?

Wanna live all green? Shut the damn electricity off. Quit using any source of electricity. All of it. Live in the caves, the forest, the plains. Go back to the Old Ways. What? You want tech? Lots'o tech? Screw that green stuff then. Though you may feel of warm and glowey and smug 'cause you got the Che'Volt and you aren't using much gas, remember all that went into building that car and all that will be needed to dispose of that car. And the place to park it, And the wires and plugs to charge it. And the additional power generation infrastructure to juice up all the new Che'Volts hitting the road. And on and on and on and on.

Animals are as green, naturally so. Man stepped away from greenness as soon as he discovered that a haunch o' mastodon seared crunchy golden over the fire was mighty tasty indeed. And that same fire helped keep the cave warm and toasty, gave him some light to pick the fleas and mites out of his mate's hair, and helped put a nice hard pointy tip on his sticks for better jabbability. Gave him lots of other ideas that fire did.

And here we are today...

Man is not green.

This is such an idiotic action by the government.. not because we loaned the money to Brazil, but because we don't allow our own petroleum resources to be maximized. Not because of technology, and not because of the fear of spills, but because we have this looney idea that if we just grab our crotch and think good thoughts, somehow, we'll have an alternative to oil, and live happily ever after.

Drill here, drill now.. please

These were not US loans but loans from US Banks. Inaccurate story.