A New Wind Blowing: Obama’s Clean-Energy Revolution

  • Share
  • Read Later
Jim Thompson / Albuquerque Journal / ZUMA PRESS

The Wildcat wind farm, with 13 Suzlon 2.1-megawatt wind turbines, is part of Exelon Wind in Lovington, N.M.

Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s “base case” energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much but is over six times as much as we had before Obama. Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are “imaginary” sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That’s real.

On Thursday, Obama was in Colorado, a big wind state, talking about wind. On Wednesday, Romney was in Iowa, another big wind state, not talking about wind. But the media, for a change, were talking about wind, because Republicans in Iowa have criticized Romney’s opposition to offering tax credits for the wind industry. I would also point out, and not only because The New New Deal is coming out next week, that Romney and his party opposed the Obama stimulus bill that revived the wind industry and the rest of the clean-tech sector from a near death experience. As I’ve written before, wind turbines the size of 747s were rusting in the fields after the financial collapse of 2008; after Obama signed the stimulus, wind companies began pouring billions of dollars back into the U.S.

Anyway, it’s nice to see political reporters paying attention to something that matters. Romney would say the tax-credit issue goes to Obama’s penchant for supporting goodies for specific industries, which isn’t really fair, since as Obama often says but reporters rarely repeat, Romney and his party support outrageous subsidies and tax breaks for the spectacularly wealthy oil industry. But it’s true that Obama has tried to support clean energy in general, and the results have been remarkable.

For example, the generation of renewable electricity has doubled on Obama’s watch. The stimulus has financed the world’s largest wind farm, a half-dozen of the world’s largest solar farms, the nation’s first refineries for advanced biofuels, a new battery industry for electric vehicles, unprecedented investments in cleaner coal and a smarter electric grid and over 15,000 additional clean-energy projects. The Obama Administration has also approved the first 17 utility-scale solar projects on public lands, as well as historic new fuel-efficiency and appliance-efficiency standards that will dramatically reduce our energy consumption. Last year, the U.S. was the least dependent on foreign oil it’s been since 1995, and our greenhouse-gas emissions are dropping even though the economy is growing.

But you don’t hear about that much. Even after the Massey coal-mine collapse, the BP oil spills, the Fukushima nuclear meltdown and now the Chevron refinery fire, there hasn’t been a great debate about clean energy and Obama’s green revolution. (Wind and solar spills are a problem only when you don’t have a sweater or sunscreen.) Instead, as I wrote in a magazine column this week, we’ve been mired in a fake debate over Solyndra. The tax credit for the wind industry is as good a place as any to start a real debate, not just because it creates jobs in Colorado and Iowa — industry-targeted tax credits always create jobs in the industries they target — but also because it exploits an inexhaustible domestic source of electricity that doesn’t broil the planet.

Wind and solar essentially were imaginary before Obama took office, but now they’re a real threat to the fossil-fuel status quo. That’s why their tax credits, which used to be renewed routinely with overwhelming bipartisan support, have become so controversial and why Romney would risk alienating voters in windy swing states to oppose it. Ultimately, the argument over wind and other clean energy, like so many arguments in this campaign, is an argument about change.

113 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
timblincoe23
timblincoe23

Homerhk just a couple things to chew on if you have a sec. President obama and both houses of congress passed the tarp 1 and 2 with virtually no republican support. At the time we were told it was the toxic asset relief program and he gave the money with no strings attached to banks and wall street in order to buy up the real estate that was on their books. There was a total mortgage debt at the time of 13 trillion dollars. Thats was the total of every home condo apt and tree house in the country. 

10 trillion dollars was given away to the banks so that they could take the homes back kick the home owners out and cover all their losses. This money could have paid off damn near every mortgage in the country and left every homeowner with a zero balance and a fully paid for free and clear home ( I do not advocate this but Im trying to illustrate the immensity of this crime)  This entire economic nightmare is being driven by the continually falling value of american home owners equity in their property. 

We will never know where the money went or why it was given because thats mr hope and changes sop.

I was a home builder for 20 years employing several hundred people directly and indirectly. In 2006 there were roughly 2 million men and women employed in the framing business. Thats just the nail pounders There were infinitely more employed as concrete, electrical, plumbing, roofing, drywallers, carpet installers, cabinet makers, et al. Mostly non union. Total employment easily numbers in the 11-12 millions. For some reason This segment of our economy did not warrant so much as 1 dollar of concern from the dear leader.

Ahh but the heroic saving of 39100 uaw jobs at a cost of 80 billion dollars or 3 million per job saved is something he is terribly proud of. 

Then the man decides through all of his great wisdom and infinite knowledge of every topic that the oil coal gas business is no longer something he can support ….so that means that no american can support it either. His policies have lead to an economic situation that has never been seen before where in everything that americans already own is losing value and everything they need to buy is sky rocketing. How do you defend a man who tells you that the oil industry is evil its leading to all manner of problems it has to be replaced with new clean renewable energy sooner rather than later. Then the genius goes out and props up the single biggest user of this evil industries product and makes it possible for them to earn record profits cause they dont have to drill any new wells and can charge twice as much as they did four years ago. They havent spent a dime on new supply in 3 years but the income keeps goin through the roof courtesy of our man Barry. 

Please do not take my disgust with our President as hostility towards you becuase it is anything but. I sense that you are just as passionate a supporter and that is your right. I hope I have given you a reason to see why some of us out here in the sand box dont necessarily agree. But thats why they make more than one color car. Have a good weekend. and Clint did have one thing right its us against them not you against me  

cowcharge
cowcharge

We replaced windmills with steam engines 150 years ago for a reason, and that reason is still valid. Energy density. Ya canna' change the laws of physics. Windmills don't work, period. 

http://www.friendsofmainesmoun...

Maine Wind Concerns
Maine Wind Concerns

Another clever opinion piece that ignores science.  Namely that wind and solar are apples while coal and oil are oranges.  If getting off coal and oil are to be signs of progress, wind and solar are only delaying progress. 

To read this spirited piece one would presume (actually most of the public actually does) that we use oil to generate electricity.  If fact, less than 1% of America's electricity comes from oil.  So stop implying that a windmill will get us off oil.  

As for coal, it generates about half of our country's electricity, almost all of it base load. That is to say it runs full throttle 24/7.  It is the anchor of the grid.  Yes, it pollutes.  Want something else?  Nuke can replace/displace coal.  Hydro could.  Natural gas could too. But wind cannot.  Physically impossible.  So stop implying that a windmill or a million windmills will replace or displace a single coal plant.  They cannot.

Grid scale wind power makes some people feel good as it picks their ratepayer and taxpayer pockets, but it is superfluous, and essentially useless.     

Philo99
Philo99

Could this article come at a worse time, as Vestas, the largest wind turbine manufacturer is about to lay off another 1/3 of it's workforce in Colorado.

If the production tax credit is not renewed the industry expects that demand will drop by 86%. When 86% of your industry is dependent on government subsidies you are a welfare project, not an industry.

This is the problem with forcing a technology to market before it can be competitive. Obama had visions of grandeur in his head but the taxpayers are left with billions of wasted dollars and the industry is no further along than if it waited till it was truely ready.

kolektory słoneczne
kolektory słoneczne

I agree with your post.Your energy revolution information is good.Your pictorial representation is very clear and easily understand.We want more details about energy revolution post.Thanks for your post.

Steve Izzo
Steve Izzo

this guy gives Obama way too much credit for wind.  It was not dead prior to his arrival,  it was thriving in texas, california and pa to name a few.  renewables have been taking hold despite the bil oil/gas attempts to kill them...  because they make sense, especially on the home scale but even in national industry scale cause some corporate folks see change coming.  Obama has also said we should"welcome natural gas",  is blowing up more mountains than ever,  has changed nothing in the gulf after deep horizon spill and just gave Shell permission to dril the artic.  He's not a socialist or any of the other things the neo con wack jobs call him but he is a corporate front man just like the 4 presidents before him. The heat is cranking up and now that the real baking has started...  he's gonna have to do alot better than that to save our American asses. 

bluewaters4567
bluewaters4567

Finally some good news.  Ive always believed, that when you invest in wind and solar, it takes time before you reap the rewards, but you eventually do.  I hope we continue down this path.

cowcharge
cowcharge

If you consider higher electric rates, blasted mountain tops, not a single conventional power plant replaced, no drop in fossil fuel use or pollution, and wasted tax money rewards, then you're right.

Adam
Adam

T. Boone Pickens invested heavily in wind energy and stated recently, "I've lost my a$$ in the wind business."  When it comes to the state of the "clean energy revolution", I'll trust the assessment of the guy who invested his own money in it over that of a journalist with an agenda who thinks it's a great idea to keep investing somebody else's money in these failed enterprises

Michael Mckinley
Michael Mckinley

Information Source: AWEA (American Wind Energy Association - awea.org) and Wind Powering America.  Michael Grunwald WANTS COAL MINERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA AND OHIO TO LOSE THEIR JOBS FOR HIS WIND SUBSIDY.  TELL THESE COAL MINERS amp; THEIR FAMILIES TO THEIR FACES THAT A SUBSIDY SHOULD REPLACE THEIR JOBS amp; THEIR ELECTRICITY RATES WILL GO UP TOO.  My name is michael too; you are an idiot when it comes to wind.  Where does wind work best? - where there are few liberals; west texas and Wyoming.  Texas and Oklahoma have policies that aren't about NIMBY (not in my backyard).  New Yorkers, Pennsylvania amp; continue to block wind development in Lake Ontario and along the shore where conditions are good.  There are PLENTY of places in California where wind conditions are good, sorry (the democrats are blocking its pace of development there too.  You have a convenient memory where it comes to that offshore wind farm in Massachuttes.  Its been what, ten years and waiting.

Would there be wind without subsidies, no; unless it makes money sense.  Subsidies are not a step forward amp; YOU ARE AN ECONOMIC IDIOT FOR SUGGESTING AN ALL SUBSIDIES WORLD IS PROGRESS.  DO YOU PAY A SUBSIDY FOR YOU NEXT MEAL OUT?  STAY OUT OF MY POCKET UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO FACE A CROWD OF MINERS IN WEST VIRGINIA AND TELL THEM YOU WANT THEM TO LOSE THEIR JOBS.  THE REAL WIND IS GETTING DONE WHILE PEOPLE LIKE Michael Grumwald are just blowhards about economic theory; not money reality.  

BY THE WAY; I'M PRO WIND.  THE TURBINES WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP WHERE THE Kilowatt cost per hour makes sense.  It's called the free market; you've heard of it?

Darrelb
Darrelb

This article is satire, a characture. The economically unviable "clean energy industry" only exists because of Obama's crony capitalism, pouring billions of wasted taxpayer dollars into projects that cannot survive in a free marketplace.

The real revolution in energy production has gone straight over the head of Obama and his central planners as well as the elite, effete intellectual Left like Greenwd. It's called drilling technology and fracking. These new technologies have made so-called clean energy even more uncompetitive.

silver fox
silver fox

another abysmal attempt by a lefty to clarify the mud coming out of dc. Michael.....you are three cents shy of a nickel and getting worse. Is there some kind of twinkey gene in socialists that insists on trying to turn trds into t-bone steaks?

jtintokyo
jtintokyo

The author wants us readers to think that the US's reduction in dependency on foreign energy sources has anything to do with wind and solar. In fact, the reduction in US dependency on foreign oil is the result of the increase in the production of natural gas due to fracking, not because of billions of dollars of subsidies for wind and solar. The increase in electricity production in the US from natural gas between 2008 and 2010 was 100 times the total production of solar in 2010.

The author also seems be unaware that the use of petroleum accounted for only 0.9% of the total production of electricity in the US in 2010. Anyone who says that wind and solar should be subsidized to reduce US dependence on oil has no idea what they are talking about.

Lisa Linowes
Lisa Linowes

Mr. Grunwald -- wind and solar are not a threat to traditional sources of electric generation. What is the source of your speculation? The wind industry? Your piece advocates for an industry, that for over 20 years of government support, has utterly failed to demonstrate it can produce on its own. And the reason has everything to do with inherent limitations of wind coupled with its extrodinary cost relative to other resources. BTW: Oil and gas do not receive subsidies akin to wind where every kwh of production receives a 2.2 cent credit. The open-ended subsidy of 2.2¢/kWh in after-tax income represents a pre-tax value of approximately 3.5¢/kWh which, in many regions of the country, equals or exceeds the wholesale price of power. Please try thinking with your brain and not your heart. Your piece adds nothing to the debate beyond rehashed talking points from the American Wind Energy Association.

Mike Barnard
Mike Barnard

For those reading Ms. Linowes comments, please know that she is a long-time anti-wind lobbyist with strong ties to the Heartland Institute according the Checks and Balances Project.  Astroturfer in other words.

http://checksandbalancesprojec...

cowcharge
cowcharge

So what? Anyone who opposes wind is obviously aware of the absolute uselessness of these giant lawn ornaments, no matter who they work for.

AshMat
AshMat

While some of the right wing commenters here are right that renewables have required subsidies to survive this will not be the case for too much longer. Most of the analysis I've seen suggests grid parity ($/kwh) for solar in the next 5-10 years, largely due to Chinese manufacturing. As others have said the input costs for renewables are low but the biggest benefits are the fact that were not paying billions to the Saudis and thevenzuelans. The right is basically carrying water for some of the people who hate us most. Make those countries stand up on their own two feet rather than depending on oil revenue and see how quickly they embrace openness and capitalism. These externalities are worth paying for.

cowcharge
cowcharge

We don't use oil to generate electricity, so wind turbines have nothing to do with "getting us off oil".

Joe Lammers
Joe Lammers

I've been hearing this for 40 years now (parity is just around the corner) so forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical.  Also, the Chinese solar manufacturers are not in good shape now, some of them are facing bankruptcy.

jtintokyo
jtintokyo

Ash,

As I noted above, petroleum accounts for less than 1% of US electricity production. US electrical production has nothing to do with US imports of oil. Increases in wind and solar will have no impact on petroleum imports from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

I do expect that grid parity for solar may well be achieved within the next decade and it is possible that the first widespread application will be in the Northeast where electricity costs are much higher than in other parts of the country. One likely application would be on the roofs of homes where some portion of household electricity production would be generated. Another might be for street lights and other light sources generated by LED's.

However, the large footprint required for solar power production means that the applications of solar are likely to be specific rather than broad. 

cowcharge
cowcharge

Wind turbines are indeed useful on a residential scale, if one uses batteries. But batteries are not grid-tie capable with any currently available technology, so one must have two separate electrical systems if one wants both to remain tied to the grid and to use wind. If one can afford that or build it oneself, more power to you. But it will not pay for itself within your lifetime. Same with industrial wind, except the greenies want to MAKE us pay for it, when it can't pay for itself. The only ones who benefit from grid-scale wind are the hucksters selling it. 

Michael Kelley
Michael Kelley

The reason lefty, greenie types love "alternative energy" is that is so costly to produce.  The resulting higher energy costs lead to more conservation, especially by people of limited means.  If a few million poor people shiver in the dark, well that's a small price to pay.  

I have never seen even a puff piece like this one tout "green" energy because it is cheap to produce.  It isn't, and its intermittent nature will make brownouts and blackouts much more common in the future.  

Joe Lammers
Joe Lammers

I've noticed that the more impractical and costly something is, and the more it needs government subsidies to survive, the more leftists and greenies seem to like it.  So called light rail is another example.

Quek
Quek

On a hot day in Idaho, where there is a few hundred windmills, there was 3250 MW's of power required. A whooping 14 MW is all the windmills provided. A small new gas fired electric plant near Plymoth Idaho produced 240 MW. Seriously, enough with the wasting money on wind farms because it makes you feel good. It isn't your money.

jtintokyo
jtintokyo

The author confuses power generation capacity with power production. When the author says that the US has 50 GW (h) of wind and 5 GW (h) of solar capacity he is referring to power generation capacity. In 2010, the generating capacity of wind power was 40.2 GWh so it is possible that his figure is for 2011 and that it may be correct. The same figure for solar in 2010 was 2.7 GW. The power generation capacity of wind in 2010 in the US was 3.5% of total capacity while that of solar was only 0.2%.

But power generation capacity does not equal actual power production. The actual electrical power production of wind in 2010 in the US was 2.3% of total electrical production while the total production of solar electricity was a feeble 0.03% or only 1/10th of solar's total power capacity.

Other renewables produced far more electricity than did solar. Geothermal produced more than 10 times the electricity of solar in 2010 while biomass produced 15 times the electrical output of solar. And hydroelectric? Hydroelectric produced more than 200 times the electrical power of solar in the US in 2010.

And yet the Obama administration continues to pour billions of dollars into a technology that remains uncompetitive relative to other electrical generating technologies and which has a huge footprint relative to conventional power sources. Who gains from this nonsense? The crony capitalists who have nuzzled up to the centers of power through their campaign contributions. Who loses? "The rest of us."

Guest
Guest

Did you lift/recycle this content from your colleague, Zakaria who, in turn, lifted it from another tool?

Sullivan Solar Power
Sullivan Solar Power

America presently get 1.2 % of our Energy from Green anything at a cost

of  $ 1.3 Million per job. The  none bias National Energy Comm.

stevenally
stevenally

ok. What are your sources? These assertion need some credibility.

donzi_boy
donzi_boy

These energy sources are only feasible with subsidized build and generation.  The operators need to have long term contracts for inflated rates for their electricity to make generation feasible and taxpayers and consumers will pay the price for a long time to come(20 year contracts are common).

spammurai
spammurai

Are people really trying to defend this abomination? Let me tell you folks..when I was young it was even/odd day, green and red flags. Its coming back. Lucky to buy it at any price. 

JohnJMac
JohnJMac

Straight from the DNC. No mention of 1) the percentage of our energy needs supplied by renewables (less than 2%); 2) the return on investment (over $1M per job); and 3) the relative cost per gigawatt (multiples of conventional energy).

The real energy revolution is actually happening in North Dakota.

windfail
windfail

According to Mr Grunwald 50 GW of wind power. Wow that's impressive however

if you look at the actual generation of all that 50 GW of installed wind power, it generates  only 17% on any given day in other words 8.5 GW, you can understand why no private company will invest in wind power without government subsidies . If you run your company with  17% efficency you will go broke in short order.

Alan_McIntire
Alan_McIntire

A case of crony capitalism:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11...

"The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and

ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire

$1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been

given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.

The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and

contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely

eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them

large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial

firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General

Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.

A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra,

a start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to develop

cutting-edge solar technology before it went bankrupt, but nearly 90

percent of the $16 billion in clean-energy loans guaranteed by the

federal government since 2009 went to subsidize these lower-risk power

plants, which in many cases were backed by big companies with vast

resources."

If these projects WERE NOT  government boondogles, don't you think GE, Morgan Stanley,  and Goldman Sachs would have invested their OWN money in the projects?

rsbsail
rsbsail

Would you explain what the oil company "subsidies" are?  You won't because it is simply depreciation, which is a tax deduction every company receives.

How much taxes do oil companies pay as a percent of profit?  Do you even know?

The fact is that "green energy" is a way for Democrats to steal money from taxpayers to give to their cronies.  It is called crony capitalism, and it sucks. 

Pronghorn
Pronghorn

By the TIME we get to 100% wind/solar energy, we'll be bankrupt and there won't be any land left for farms, houses, or businesses.

Sam E Moore Jr
Sam E Moore Jr

America presently get 1.2 % of our Energy from Green anything at a cost of  $ 1.3 Million per job. The  none bias National Energy Comm.says in the next 20-22 years if we are lucky we will  get 10-11 % of our needs since there are NO Storage electric generators even close to suppling our needs .WIND AND SUN WORK 58 % of  the Time in only 79 % of  America . 

We have .08 of 1 % Electric Cars on the Road . 51 % Run off of  Coal Fired plants Obama will be closing 1,244 Major Coal Mines within 18 months the EPA has announced .

That is why Electricity cost is up 24.7 % Nationally in 30 months  .Expect it to double in the next 36 months in our worse economy ever . 

Corn as gas now at 8.00 a Bushel would make Corn gas 48.00 per gallon if it was used 100 % . It takes 6 Bushel's of Corn per gallon with 2.2 times more energy to make that Corn gas .

Enough said ! 

stevenally
stevenally

Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 14.3 percent of the domestically produced electricity in the first six months of 2011. 

From:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....

The National Energy Commission appears to be a Chinese Government agency.

-sigh-

Isa10Ten
Isa10Ten

stevenally: you are confusing Chinese National Energy Commission established in 2008 with the bipartisan American National Commission on Energy Policy established in 2002. It is the latter that Sam E Moore Jr referenced, perhaps incorrectly calling it National Energy Commission.

John Shea
John Shea

In point of fact, these energy sources are still  "imaginary."  Since the wind and the sun cannot be relied upon to blow and to shine with predictability, electric utilities must IGNORE these generators when they prepare and transmit energy to customers.  We might as well simply give the owners of these superfluous assets money and have them go away for all the good they do.  Until the wind can be made to blow all the time and the sun shine on demand, these environmental toys will remain feel-good back-scratchers.

chilmarkchick
chilmarkchick

John, it's clear you've never worked for an electric utility.  That is not how it works.  Many energy sources may go offline suddenly - nuclear and natural gas plants can require emergency maintenance, transmission lines can go kablooey, etc.  It's why a portfolio approach - many sources of generation - is so important .   Solar is key, because it kicks in at exactly the time you need the most electricity - midday through late afternoon.  Very little electricity is needed at night.  Look at the electricity demand curve on the Cal ISO website.

John Shea
John Shea

I read and reread your comment and can find nothing in it that responds, let alone contradicts, my point.  So let me repeat it:  in the real world of electricity transmission, solar and wind power have zero economic value because they are undependable and unreliable.  Saying "solar is key" does not alter the rules of dispatchability for power plants nor the minimum reliability needs of our customers.  Ask yourself,  will solar provide electricity to run our hospitals at night?  I note that you appear to have conceded that wind is worthless.

John Whitney
John Whitney

 Excellent response. Why is it that opponents can't or aren't willing to see the benefits of renewables being part of the energy solution. WHO CARES if they only work part of the time - they still contribute in a meaningful way to the overall energy portfolio. And in a non-polluting way! And the argument that renewables aren't cost effective is simply WRONG - get the facts guys, with the new technologies both solar and wind are now cost competitive with conventional sources. And they CREATE JOBS! What's not to like guys! Pull yourselves out of the 20th century and see the present and the future we all need to be striving for.

John
John

This is a great article because it's so utterly typical of the Leftist mentality. They start with something they WANT because of ideological reasons. They then cherry-pick a few stats that supposedly "prove" why it's a good thing.

But they never...never....address the long term costs or the financial sustainability of the program. This is why every entitlement program we have is in the red, and why the big ones are utterly unsustainable, given their spending trajectories. And the Left's response? Spend MORE! Create MORE entitlements!

And when challenged on the numbers, they throw out a facile comment or two about taxing "the rich"....as though that would come within light years of actually fixing the problem.

PhilR1
PhilR1

Gee, and Eugene Robinson of the Post wrote an editorial (pro-Obama, of course) on this exact subject.  A concidence, naturally.

 

What is wrong with the premise is that wind and solar are vastly more expensive than the conventional alternatives and always will be.  That difference could be more productively spent on other things and thereby improve the economy.  Energy subsidies are nothing more than political pork which is why they are popular in Washington and the media.

Robert C Gladstone
Robert C Gladstone

 This article is just a flat out lie.  Texas had a wind energy program long before anyone knew who Obama was and even Chinese solar panel makers are on the verge of bankruptcy.   Fracking is here to stay and this is article is a total fabrication.

kurtmudgeon
kurtmudgeon

I get it.  But tell me why so many nations are investing billions and billions and billions of dollars exploring for new oil supplies?  Planning new pipelines?  

chilmarkchick
chilmarkchick

So that they can sell it to us, genius.

kurtmudgeon
kurtmudgeon

Gee.  That's why I brought it up.  Congratulations on getting it.  If I can get to you, I can hopefully get to anyone.