BajaNomad - Mexican Oil: it's only a matter of time...

Mexican Oil: it's only a matter of time...

Photog - 7-8-2008 at 03:06 PM

Consumption up, production down; not hard to do the math.

Many in the petroleum research and investment industry have been predicting a rapid slowdown in Mexican oil production and a possible corresponding shortage of refined petro products for well over a year.

Looking at Pemex own data from their web site, Pemex info press releases, and data readily available from petroleum industry research and consulting firms, it is apparent that the lack of re-investment in the Pemex production and distribution infrastructure, as well as little new investment in refining capacity, suggests an eventual slowdown in crude oil and refined petroleum product deliverables, and a potential breakdown in the distribution system. Official Pemex crude oil production figures for 2007 and the first half of 2008 have more than validated the crude oil production predictions.

Net oil production for all Mexican fields was down 9.3 percent from Jan. to June of 2008, net refined petro product consumption was up by 5.5 % nation wide according to Pemex official figures. Net oil production is expected to fall approximately 17% for the year 2008. The Cantarell oil field, at one time the third largest oil producing field in the world, reached "peak" production in 2004 and is now in rapid decline. Although Mexico was the fifth largest producer of oil in the world in 2007, it is a net importer of refined petro products; there are only 6 currently operating petroleum product refineries in all of Mexico.

Pemex own production engineers and managers released / leaked an internal audit / report that estimated an investment of 8 to 10 billion dollars (USD) was necessary just to keep the distribution infrastructure operating in it's current sub-standard state. The Mexican nationalized monopoly is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 billion dollars (USD, 2008) in debt, a figure unrivaled by any state owned monopoly petroleum company in the world. the Link below has some interesting info in an article dated from Dec. 2004:

Quote:

"In November 2004 Pemex announced the discovery of possible reserves that may total 200 million bbl. of oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Yet independent oil analysts point out that extensive seismic studies and test wells will be needed to confirm the area's true potential, and Pemex has neither the financial resources nor the technical expertise to carry out those follow-ups on its own."

If Mexico doesn't open its oil industry to private investment, the government will have to come up with $70 billion to $100 billion in investment capital for Pemex in the coming decade to maintain production at current levels. "There's no way Mexico can tap its oil reserves with public money -- the government doesn't have enough resources, and it never will," says Luis Téllez, a former Energy Minister who now heads the Mexico office of Carlyle Group, a Washington private-equity outfit.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912084_...

And this from the current Mexican Energy Minister as reported on Peak Oil Review:

Quote:

Mexican Energy Minister Kessel reiterated that there will be fuel shortages in less than a decade unless the Congress passes the energy reform bill and begins to invest in the industry. Mexican oil production has fallen by 600,000 barrels a day since peaking in 2004 at 3.4 million barrels a day.

This, also from Peak Oil Review:

Quote:

Members of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR) staged a protest against reform legislation introduced by President Felipe Calderon that would give Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) the ability to let upstream service contracts to outside oil companies. PDR worries that Calderon is privatizing PEMEX, Mexico's national oil company and sole operator. Mexico nationalized its oil industry in 1938, a move which remains a source of great pride to its citizens.

Mexico's future oil production hangs in the balance. Output peaked in 2004 because Cantarell, the mainstay producer, is now in irrevocable decline. PEMEX does not have the resources to carry out exploration and production in its share of the Gulf of Mexico deepwater or significantly expand production in the difficult Chicontepec field. Without reform of the upstream rules, which would allow PEMEX to contract out development in untapped areas, Mexico's oil production and exports are expected to steadily decline over the next decade.

Calderon's government has also proposed plans to boost Mexico's refining capacity, a measure which would further erode exports to the United States. Mexico currently exports its heavy Maya crude for refining in the United States and then imports the finished products to meet its own increasing demand. Like the upstream reform proposal, the refinery expansion would allow private firms to build and operate Mexican oil refineries for a fee in addition to opening the oil pipeline, storage and transport businesses to private capital. The PDR also opposes opening up Mexico's downstream industry.

It may be a case of "too little, too late" regardless of the fate of the oil reforms. Perhaps a decade would be required before Mexico would see significant new production from the deepwater Gulf.

http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&tas...

The current refined petroleum products issue in northern Baja is a proto-typical example of Mexican politicians and business elites propensity to blame external forces for their own failures to govern and manage professionally and prudently. They habitually scapegoat others for their own failures; there appears to be no mitigating circumstances regarding the refined petroleum products situation in the northern Baja region. Some analysts believe the same problem may begin to surface in other parts of Mexico in the future.

Xenophobia among many Mexican politicians regarding foreign investment in Pemex, coupled with the Mexican federal law's explicit prohibition, have effectively eliminated Pemex from seeking international external funding and technology partners for deep water oil field drilling and eventual exploitation of new and as of yet untapped oil resources, as well as soliciting needed capital investment for the refining and distribution infrastructure.

And as with many businesses in Mexico there is the issue of corruption, Pemex being prone to, and commonly know as, one of the most corrupt institutions in Mexico today. Link below to an interesting and particularly damning article regarding Pemex corruption, which significantly impacts it's ability to perform efficiently:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2003/012...

Meanwhile, the federal government continues to siphon off needed production and infrastructure re-investment dollars from Pemex revenue to fund the bulk of the overall federal budget; approximately 40 to 45% of the federal budget is derived from Pemex revenue, which represents approximately 60% of Pemex net revenue.

rpleger - 7-8-2008 at 03:30 PM

Hmmmmmmm...

Cypress - 7-8-2008 at 03:35 PM

Photog, There's gonna be a bunch of PO'd folks when the poop hits the fan.

fulano - 7-8-2008 at 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Photog, There's gonna be a bunch of PO'd folks when the poop hits the fan.

There's gonna be 100 million Mexican refugees trying to climb the border fence.

What Fence?

Baja Bernie - 7-8-2008 at 04:09 PM

Osprey - 7-8-2008 at 05:41 PM

Richard, Bernie, terrific, in depth posts about a serious subject as usual. Thanks so much.

Photog: While we all sit around wondering what's what with the peso and Pemex, you are doing not just the heavy lifting but all the lifting. I appreciate it -- please keep us in the loop -- it is very volitile, dynamic and needs someone savvy like you to make sense of it for us.

bancoduo - 7-8-2008 at 06:24 PM

What ever happened to GROVERS Accurate CONCISE post.

flyfishinPam - 7-8-2008 at 06:33 PM

this is more propoganda to convince the Mexican people to sell out their patrimony to foreigners. they're smarter than that and I don't think it will happen. i hate this reference to "subsidy". do you subsidize your own belongings or your own property to yourself? the oil belongs to the Mexican people they are not subsidizing what already belongs to them.

flyfishinPam - 7-8-2008 at 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fulano

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Photog, There's gonna be a bunch of PO'd folks when the poop hits the fan.

There's gonna be 100 million Mexican refugees trying to climb the border fence.

either that or those 100 million will be chasing the elites who govern them and run everything, across that fence! :lol:

Von - 7-8-2008 at 06:58 PM

Lots BS in the air coming very soon to a theater near you...

woody with a view - 7-9-2008 at 07:38 AM

where IS the fence? :?:

Taco de Baja - 7-9-2008 at 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by flyfishinPam
this is more propoganda to convince the Mexican people to sell out their patrimony to foreigners. they're smarter than that and I don't think it will happen. i hate this reference to "subsidy". do you subsidize your own belongings or your own property to yourself? the oil belongs to the Mexican people they are not subsidizing what already belongs to them.

Oil is sold on the global market; it belongs to the person who buys it. In the USA we still pay $140 a barrel, even for "our oil" pulled out of Alaska, California, Florida, and Texas. If the next US Pres. thinks he can 'fix' the energy crisis by lowering the price of US oil that the refiners pay to $40 a barrel, it would be a subsidy too....Not to mention a bad idea. $5.00-$6.00 a gallon for gas, and $150-$200 a barrel for oil, is the best (maybe the only) thing to get Americans to conserve.

Besides, that $100 subsidy will have to be made up through either higher taxes or reduced government services, so it a wash....Plus, with the now lower fuel costs there will be no incentive to conserve or develop alternatives to our oil addiction.

Taco de Baja - 7-9-2008 at 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by woody in ob
where IS the fence? :?:

bajalou - 7-9-2008 at 09:54 AM

But if oil is produced and not sold on the market, the cost of production is the real cost - not what you could have gotten. When I value my inventory, I'm required to value it at cost, not what I expect to sell it for.

If you sell below your costs, then it's a subsidy.

[Edited on 7-9-2008 by bajalou]

Eugenio - 7-9-2008 at 09:56 AM

Pam - how do you propose that the mexican people extract their patrimony?

To me the effect of decreased Pemex revenues on tax revenues is the scariest - the mexican government will have no recourse but to take it from the people - and they will take it - here's hoping you have a cash business.

And good luck to the mexican government trying to sell bonds backed by nothing but their good word next time around.

The industrial revolution in the US was financed primarily by europeans. Money paid out in wages far exceeds corporate profit - and in fact wages are still paid out in tough times when corporate loses money.

Viva la xenofobia.

Cypress - 7-9-2008 at 02:03 PM

Taco de Baja,How 'bout Louisiana? :tumble:

There's an off-shore oil rig or two down there.

Good fishing around 'em also.

Better fishing than the Sea of Cortez in my humble opinion.

vivaloha - 7-9-2008 at 09:04 PM

Pemex autonomy from the world system will hopefully keep the prices down...

flyfishinPam - 7-10-2008 at 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eugenio
Pam - how do you propose that the mexican people extract their patrimony?

I propose they force PEMEX to reinvest its profits to build refineries and extraction equipment (or whatever the lingo is), AND I propose Mexico moves towards oil independence by conserving nd investing in alternate energy methods.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eugenio
To me the effect of decreased Pemex revenues on tax revenues is the scariest - the mexican government will have no recourse but to take it from the people - and they will take it - here's hoping you have a cash business.

I don't mind paying taxes as long as we receive benefits like education, infrastructure, have a functioning judicial system, public security, etc. Trouble is we don't pay enough now, I'd certainly be willing to pay more as long as everyone else does too. As someone in business down here I get to see a side of the tax payment procedures here that perhaps folks just living here retired don't get to see. From what I can see its a very disorganized and inefficient system and there are many many people here not paying taxes or not paying enough taxes period. This needs to change. What also needs to change is the mountains of beaurocrats who do nothing buck suck off the system and are unproductive. There are other ways of generating income that would work well and then PEMEX funds could be left for reinvestments.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eugenio
And good luck to the mexican government trying to sell bonds backed by nothing but their good word next time around.

well I can't comment on this as I don't know what you're referring to, not something I followed but I don't have too much faith in the US dollar anymore either so....

Quote:

Originally posted by Eugenio
The industrial revolution in the US was financed primarily by europeans. Money paid out in wages far exceeds corporate profit - and in fact wages are still paid out in tough times when corporate loses money.

well that was then and this is now and expense vs. income woes, well that's the cost of doing business.

Quote:

Originally posted by EugenioViva la xenofobia.

Cypress - 7-10-2008 at 02:19 PM

flyfishinPam :tumble:

Eugenio - 7-11-2008 at 11:26 AM

Pam - let's not confuse "what we wish" to happen with "what is likely" to happen. Yeah - I would propose the same as you - but it can't happen for the reasons cited in the article (plus a couple more) - as it says - do the math.

You're relatively new to Mexico - and it's good that you have this feeling that the mexican peple can turn things around on their own - and I mean that sincerely Pam - it's great. Actually they probably could - if.....

Your perspective is from an american living in a tourist destination - and that's fine. I've never lived in a tourist destination - and it would be hard for me to picture myself in one - and enjoying it much. I have however lived in Guadalajara, Mexico DF, Tijuana, Mexicali, Tepic, and around the Northern Sinaloa/Southern Sonora area. I have a strong faith in the mexican people - but have very little faith in the folks who yield power. That's probably the basis for our difference in perspective.

But as things stand now Mexico does not have the cash flow to finance modernization of Pemex, build refineries (which may be obsolete in 20 years), explore, extract, and finance 40% of mexico's federal budget - simultaneouslly - and all in an environment of corruption. Oh - and meanwhile to sell it's patrimony at below market value to it's people.

Sorry - the numbers aren't there.

Also sorry - but you totally confuse me on your stance on paying more taxes. First you say you wouldn't mind - and then you give us a list of conditions..if...if...if... What's your stance if none of your conditions are met? (they won't be Pam - you're a newbie in Mexico).

Oil reserves and receivable from Pemex contracts with US refineries have been used as collateral for bonds and loans (so much for autonomy). So in effect foreigners already have claim to a piece of Mexico's patrimony. They helped bail out of it's Peso meltdown in1995/6. I'll give you some links if you wish - or search it yourself.

What do you not understand about my xenophobia remark? I completely agree with the article that mexican politicians are xenophobic - except that it's not so much the politicians themselves as much as their pandering to sentiments of the mexican people - and using it to get elected.

Anyway - thanks for taking a chunk out of my lunch.

Old News

MrBillM - 7-11-2008 at 08:31 PM

Hasn't it been a couple of years since Pemex's problems were outlined in an L.A. Times business article and widely discussed here ?

Aging (or Maturing as they put it) existing fields, aging and inadequate production facilities, lack of investment in Infrastructure, lack of refining capability, corruption (a given in Mexico) and the inability to attract foreign investment to exploit the deeper-water fields because those investors had no confidence that their investment would be secure from manipulation or default by the Mexican bureaucrats.

Some things don't change.

Osprey - 7-12-2008 at 06:07 PM

Cypress :tumble:

Cypress - 7-12-2008 at 07:54 PM

A couple of years ago, 10/9/06, oil was $60 US a barrel.

Today a barrel of oil is going for $145 US per barrel.

Some things do change.

Eugenio - 7-13-2008 at 01:39 PM

If we had known that folk at the crack Nomad Institute had already covered this theme we wouldn't have bothered - there can't be any more to be said on the subject.

The difficulty in attracting investors isn't lack of confidence per se - it's that they are prohibited by the mexican constitution from sharing profits - the same was true when oil was priced at $25 per barrel. Other third world countries in Mexico's situation have some profit sharing formula - like 50/50 sharing of profits. Mexico is the only country in the world that prohibits ANY profit going to foreign companies. L - even Venezuela shares profits.

flyfishinPam - 7-13-2008 at 06:07 PM

eugenio, i apologige for not being able to respond to your earlier post we are very busy right now. well what to say and whre to begin and my time is limited.
on my reasonable conditions in paying more taxes. i think conditions are expected when someone pays for something and i do not think what i stated as conditions are unreasonable but paying just for the sake of paying in order to keep an overstuffed beurocracy going is just plain stupid. i guess that i am seeing history repeating itself of perhaps it may repeat itself. does Mexico really want foreign investment in its petrol industry? or do they just want financial help? i think it is time for Mexico to be more self sufficient, the people deserve it and it can be done. your comments on the state of the political scene are depressing but i don't just want to give up, roll over, pay, do what they say no matter what. i guess i have hope for the future out of my own fear. I do live in a tourist town but does that mean that the people here have less say in matters, or are less informed? also i just thought the xenophobic remark was directed at me and that's why i wasn't understanding the meaning. but no matter how crappy i may be expressing myself here on these issues i think you and i think more along the same lines than one would conclude by just looking at our quick exchanges.

CaboRon - 7-13-2008 at 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eugenio
If we had known that folk at the crack Nomad Institute had already covered this theme we wouldn't have bothered - there can't be any more to be said on the subject.

The difficulty in attracting investors isn't lack of confidence per se - it's that they are prohibited by the mexican constitution from sharing profits - the same was true when oil was priced at $25 per barrel. Other third world countries in Mexico's situation have some profit sharing formula - like 50/50 sharing of profits. Mexico is the only country in the world that prohibits ANY profit going to foreign companies. L - even Venezuela shares profits.

And why would anyone in their right mind invest without sharing in the profits

[Edited on 7-14-2008 by CaboRon]

A response

Photog - 7-14-2008 at 11:35 AM

I've been a member of Nomads since 2003 but rarely post here. Normally I don't do follow up posts or respond to other posters commentary, however, I feel compelled in this case to do so.

The text of the "State of Mexican Oil" post was original content, this is not an article that was copied from another source, with the exception of text included in quote boxes. As such it is my opinion drawn from research and reading on the subject of the exploration for and exploitation of oil world wide, the info having been gathered over about a ten year period, with an emphasis on Mexican oil in the last few years

The subject of how best to manage Mexican oil production and distribution, and the use of oil revenue and subsequent pricing of the derived products, is a thorny issue when viewed in the context of the current and past political / economic environment of Mexico, and not given to brief "sound bite" explanations or writings.

While the facts regarding declining oil production, sub-standard distribution / refining capacity and infrastructure, inadequate maintenance management, corruption within Pemex, the unions and some government institutions related to Pemex oversight, is not "new news", the fact that none of these issues have been tackled is still currently topical. These are on-going issues.

The significance of the "state of Mexican oil" looms large as the federal government derives some 40% plus of its total revenue from Pemex revenue. The actual figure is unknown to outside sources, the estimates ranging from a low of 39% to a high of 55%. The consensus seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% to 45%. What is "new news" regarding production is that the rate of decline is advancing faster than originally predicted in the years 2000, 2004, and 2007. Hence, the title of my post and the lead-in line; time is not on Mexico's side and the numbers speak for themselves as to the consequences if certain problems aren't remedied.

As of late the Mexican congress appears to have reached an agreement on lowering the overall Pemex tax rate from 79% to 71%, thus saving Pemex approximately 2 to 3 billion dollars USD annually. Where exactly to apply this new revenue is a subject of political and Pemex management debate. What is clear is that it will not begin to cover increased capital investment needs in all or even most areas.

The info in my post is largely derived from Pemex official data; the info in the quoted articles relies heavily of Pemex data / info also. There appears to be little debate within Pemex and the Mexican federal government that they are facing a serious problem as regards oil production and management; the debate centers around what to do, and how to do it. Along those lines there have been numerous schemes floated for revenue sharing; again, this is new news, as well as "old news". As regards exploration and production Pemex seems to advocate a flat service fee scenario, while private oil exploration firms who have the technology and equipment for deep sea exploitation favor a revenue sharing scheme. As to building new refineries the debate appears to revolve around the same issue. Distribution reform would mean opening that service to international business interests who have the capital and expertise to significantly improve on the efficiency / timeliness of refined oil by-product delivery. Distribution of gasoline and natural gas to end user retail outlets is already privatized as Pemex does not maintain a trucking fleet, or shipping fleet, for the purpose of distribution.

It has been suggested in a post here that all of this info is merely "propaganda", somehow a conspiracy to deprive Mexicans of their "patrimony". I have no vested interest in trying to sway or persuade anyone with the info I wrote in my post, that being Webster's definition of "propaganda". As to the info in quote boxes, with the exception of the quote from the former Mexican energy minister, none of the individuals or publication / web site sources have a vested interest, which is to say stand to gain monetarily, from publishing facts, statistics, and opinions, which again are derived primarily from Pemex data. Pemex management certainly has a vested interest in in making their data / info public in that certain segments of the federal bureaucracy and a large segment of the population need to be aware of the potential consequences of in-action regarding the issues surrounding future exploration, current production, distribution / maintenance, and the associated costs of all of these activities as relates to "keeping the spigot turned on". If the spigot gets turned off, for whatever reason, the Mexicans have no way of getting their "patrimony." If anything, Pemex has a vested interest in low-balling their numbers in order to deflect criticism and avoid the political fallout from past management practices.

Increased efficiency and a reduction in corruption most certainly would help boost Pemex revenue, however, with the amount of required capital investment dollars being bandied about by Pemex and international oil analysts / consultants there is no way that these dollar savings will even come close to providing the necessary new funding. These figures are relatively easy to access and amount to some pretty simple math. As regards "alternative energy methods" none of these in other countries have proved effective, or cost effective, in reducing oil consumption. If the federal Mexican government doesn't have the funds to cut Pemex tax rates, thus cutting their own revenue, where would the money come from to develop / subsidize alternate energy sources? As regards a reduction in consumption, Mexico, like every other industrialized nation in the world, is increasing its consumption, this being closely coupled with increased economic activity. JOBS require business activity; business activity requires ENERGY.

Regarding increased taxation in an attempt to ameliorate Pemex investment capital shortfalls, the increase in taxes needed to fill the gap would cause an immediate recession, or perhaps depression, and at any rate would be seen as completely unpalatable by Mexican federal politicians; it would in affect be ruinous to the economy. However, collecting taxes from the uber-wealthy Mexican industrialists under the current tax structure, coupled with some degree of business tax reform, is long overdue. The bottom line on taxation is that NO government has ever taxed their way out of a revenue shortfall in one area without having created unforeseen shortfalls, and at times dire consequences, in another area of the economy. More taxation is not the answer to the problems of oil production and capital investment shortfalls; less taxation is actually what is needed, as recognized by many in Los Pinos, and just about everybody in senior management at Pemex.

Eugenio has a very good handle on the reality of the situation as regards all of this:

Quote:

let's not confuse "what we wish" to happen with "what is likely" to happen. Yeah - I would propose the same as you - but it can't happen for the reasons cited in the article (plus a couple more) - as it says - do the math.

Quote:

But as things stand now Mexico does not have the cash flow to finance modernization of Pemex, build refineries (which may be obsolete in 20 years), explore, extract, and finance 40% of Mexico's federal budget - simultaneously - and all in an environment of corruption. Oh - and meanwhile to sell it's patrimony at below market value to it's people.

Quote:

Mexican politicians are xenophobic - except that it's not so much the politicians themselves as much as their pandering to sentiments of the Mexican people - and using it to get elected.

Quote:

If we had known that folk at the crack Nomad Institute had already covered this theme we wouldn't have bothered - there can't be any more to be said on the subject.

The difficulty in attracting investors isn't lack of confidence per se - it's that they are prohibited by the Mexican constitution from sharing profits - the same was true when oil was priced at $25 per barrel. Other third world countries in Mexico's situation have some profit sharing formula - like 50/50 sharing of profits. Mexico is the only country in the world that prohibits ANY profit going to foreign companies. L - even Venezuela shares profits.

This ultimately leads to the current debate in the DF on changing the federal constitution to allow some sort of foreign investment. Mexico can still control the lions share of the profits, control and manage the processes, and ultimately remain in the drivers seat, no pun intended. Neither Pemex nor federal politicians within the Calderón administration are advocating a complete privatization of Mexican oil. That is unnecessary, unwise, and is a canard advanced by the increasingly politically marginalized PRD party and Obrador. What they are advocating is finding ways to get a badly needed capital infusion such that they can keep the oil, and oil revenue, flowing.

Photog

AND..........

MrBillM - 7-14-2008 at 12:14 PM

Nothing said or suggested here will have affect any on those decisions.

Interestingly, ALL of the current problems have been discussed for many years with no consensus on resolving those problems. When it all crashes, there will be a panic approach to legislation and action resulting in more chaos.

Just like the current approach in the U.S. Congress.

rts551 - 7-14-2008 at 12:19 PM

discussed for many years but no crash yet. How resilliant humans are

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Nothing said or suggested here will have affect any on those decisions.

Interestingly, ALL of the current problems have been discussed for many years with no consensus on resolving those problems. When it all crashes, there will be a panic approach to legislation and action resulting in more chaos.

Just like the current approach in the U.S. Congress.

fulano - 7-14-2008 at 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
discussed for many years but no crash yet. How resilliant humans are.

That reminds me of the anectdote of the guy who jumped off the top of a 50-story building, thinking he could fly. As he was passing the 25th story on the way down, a man stuck his head out of the window and asked the jumper how it was going. The jumper replied: "so far, so good".

Cypress - 7-14-2008 at 12:29 PM

MrBillM,

The approval rating of the U. S Congress is in the single digits. :no:

They've been taken into water over their heads and most of 'em can't swim.

No Surprise there.

MrBillM - 7-14-2008 at 12:54 PM

Taking ONLY the example of addressing the energy problems, all that you hear from those in charge is "Well, doing THAT (insert solution) won't change anything for 5-10 years so there isn't any point in doing it".

Well, If we DO NOTHING, we don't even have 5-10 years to look forward to.

For political leaders to say that DOING NOTHING is the best course is the height of arrogance, but not surprising for a bunch whose legislative record consists mainly of renaming post offices.

What the Heck ever happened to those first 100 days of action promised by the Dems for the new Congress that they controlled ?

Cypress - 7-14-2008 at 01:23 PM

They were all selected by majority vote.

I'm thinking the voters are dumber than the idiots they've elected.

Barry A. - 7-14-2008 at 01:41 PM

Photog------

Excellent post---------thank you.

Barry

bajadock - 7-14-2008 at 02:32 PM

Chevron CEO in Grover's item mentions Project Better Place.

http://www.projectbetterplace.com/4-gasoline-and-fuel-econom...

June 26, 2008 Congressional Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming....paraphrasing witness testimony at hearing's end...
"The technology is ready. Just get government out of the way!"

CaboRon - 7-14-2008 at 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
They were all selected by majority vote.

I'm thinking the voters are dumber than the idiots they've elected.

In the US elections are NOT based on a majority vote ... the results are based on the Electoral College .... a complex and cumberson system left over from the days when the vote was in the hands of the landowners .

CaboRon

[Edited on 7-15-2008 by CaboRon]