WE Blog

Maybe the town cars were wind powered? Or…is it just possible that good ol Al is one of the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd?

Texas is going whole-hog into wind and Kansas can’t get past whether we should pollute our air with more coal (Holcomb) and send the energy out of state.

Yup, that’s CON think . . .

Looks like the GORACLE is jumping on the T. Boone Pickens money wagon so he can get some of that cold, hard cash to expand his mansion in Tennessee.

Climate crisis Brownlee? 0.8 degree temperature rise last century is a climate crisis?

Of course, if the Global Warmers are wrong and it turns out we are heading for global cooling, what happens when the plains of the U.S. to include Texas are thrown into sub-zero temperatures, that will freeze any productivity of wind turbines and cause break down of connectivity issues due to fragile plastics that cannot handle temperature extremes?

Nuclear power is a better solution for long term energy production.

We will be using MORE coal 10 years from now, in the United States, than what we use now.

We will be using MORE oil 10 years from now, in the United States, than what we use now.

There is NO true substitute for carbon based fuels anytime in our future.

Wind is fine, to a point, but wind is very, very unpredictable. It is not possible, as a practicle matter, for wind to provide more than a fraction of our electricity. I have heard 10% as a reasonable goal, for total production of electricity from wind.

Those who argue against any limits on wind power claim that we can easily move electricity from areas with wind to areas without wind.

It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.

There is no practical way to save or store electric energy. When that day comes, this issue can be re-visited.

Sorry, Capn “I HATE” America..but Gore is pretty consistent in his do as I say, not as I do mentality. Here is a followup on his famous house…from June of this year..

From the Tenessee Center for Policy Research:

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

More CON-think from Franklin–”what about when the wind doesn’t blow?

Well, gee, that’s when the coal fired plants kick in. But think of all the pollution that isn’t generated when the wind is blowing.

You can address the future of energy in America, or you can attack an American who is trying to do some good. Your choice says a lot about what you are made of.

‘Gore decreases his energy usage so TCPR lies about it’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/gore_decrease_his_energy_usage.php
“And that’s using the numbers from the TCPR. Gore’s spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the real numbers are rather different:

In fact, over the past year the Gores’ utility bills have dropped 40 percent, thanks largely to the house’s spanking new geothermal heating and cooling system, which has reduced the Gores’ natural gas bill by 90 percent in the past year. …

Kreider pointed out that the renovations weren’t complete until November, so it’s a bit early to be attempting before-and-after comparisons. In addition, the Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service’s Green Power Switch Program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas from landfills (the house’s 33 solar panels only supply 4 percent of its power needs, per Kreider.) So any energy they burn won’t be burning them a bigger carbon footprint.”

Gore’s energy use went down last summer, despite a HEAT wave.

‘Gore makes Nashville home more ‘green’ ‘
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
“Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation’s most environmentally friendly.
…
“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
…
It houses his offices and those of his wife, Tipper, as well as a commercial kitchen for formal events.
…
The Green Building Council’s certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore’s home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.”

econ posted,

“It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.”
————–

And who “deserves” energy, when a coal-fired plant is shut-down for a month or longer, for maintenance?

A link to Gore’s speech:

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gorechallenge.html?r=3945&id=13269-3981722-expWp2x

Even if Gore is wrong about gloabal warming, which I don’t think he is, what is the down side to paying the equivalent of $1.00 gallon of gas, to stop importing oil and giving our treasure to Arab nations who harbor terrorists who want to kill us, etc., etc., etc.???

#
SolDevVB
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

cosmos_originally
Posted July 18, 2008 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Global cooling(sic) update:

‘NOAA: Eighth Warmest June on Record for Globe‘

Makes you wonder. If Co2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years, why isn’t the globe hotter than it has been over the last 800,000 years?

BTW, why did the NOAA lie about the temps when they new NASA would have the real temps?
——————————–
It’s because James Hansen works at NOAA and is trying to preserve his scientific reputation by altering data through a mixture of ruses and deceptions.

James Hansen, more than anyone else, cheerleaded the scientific community into false assumptions of science. It was a cleverly disguised attempt using correlation and not empirical observation.

A lesson that every future scientist should be aware, that correlation does not substantiate raw empirical data, observation and testing.

Raptor the dims won’t get it but don’t ever think that GWing isn’t big business. Look what it did for Gore alone not to mention all of those ‘peer reviewed’ scientists working on grants.
—————
”
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.”
———————–
And Cap a four door Civic will handle 5 people in comfort. Maybe not as much leg room as a Town Car but it would sure be better for Mr. GWing himself to drive one and fly commercial every now and then.

I have two cars. One is a town car that hardly gets out of the garage now and the other is a Prius. Hubby is 6′5″ and he has plenty of leg room. Those in the back seat are comfortable also. It carries 5 easily. I am sure many small cars boast this same comfort. You can do what you want to do or be like the left and excuse everything this idiot does.T Boone and he deserve each other.

Me thinks cosmos is scouring RealClimate(sic).org for a good canned response…

“Some families can’t afford it and food for the table at the same time so I think the libs who are for this should send a separate check to the government everytime they fill up.”

And I think that you should STFU.

#
SolDevVB
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

Me thinks cosmos is scouring RealClimate(sic).org for a good canned response…
———————–
Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.

As cosmos gets backed more and more into his failed Alarmist corner, he will become more aggressive and lash out with greater intensity.

Can’t answer a simple question?

Attack the link

Attack the person

Repeat as needed.

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,

“Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.”
———–

Nothing personal about it — SolDevVB doesn’t understand the basics about climate, such as aerosols, and can’t read graphs.

And you, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’, made the ridiculous claim that there’s been a global conspiracy since the 1800’s to falsify CO2 measurements.

“What is your problem?”

You whine about the lack of civility on the blog, then you make stupid statements like that.

Why don’t we carry it a bit further – of our projected National Debt of $10 trillion, 75% was generated under Republican presidents.

Why don’t you freakin’ REPUBLICANS send an extra check with your taxes to cover that? You know, cover YOUR Republican share.

And while you are at it, send an extra check to cover YOUR war in Iraq – I was against it from day one, so why should I pay for it?

The list goes on………..

“Lead by example.”

Great, when are you going to start sending extra checks to the Treasury?

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,

“Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.”
———–

Nothing personal about it — SolDevVB doesn’t understand the basics about climate, such as aerosols, and can’t read graphs.

And you, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’, made the ridiculous claim that there’s been a global conspiracy since the 1800’s to falsify CO2 measurements.
———————
No, just an accusation that current co2 readings are done in such a manner where the data collected is manipulated to match the alarmist theory of some sort of co2 viral effect.

It ain’t happening.

SolDevVB,

Aerosols cause cooling, that offsets the warming that would be caused by the CO2. And oceans cause a thermal “inertia” that delays the warming.

NASA removed some temperature stations from their set, to improve accuracy.

Graphs,

‘Pre-historic Climate Change’
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp

‘Recent Events’
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp

NASA removed some temperature stations from their set, to improve accuracy.
=================================
(cough, B.S., cough)

Why does your second graph stop at 2000? We have cooled since 1998. Your first graph shows that.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
“Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.”

SolDevVB posted July 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm

“Whatever cosmos.”
——–

Yeah, whatever SolDevVB.

“Do you have evidence of greater aerosol presence since last year?”

I never said that.

So about the lies in the draft cosmos. Never really answered that.

About this year being cooler than last? You brought up aerolols. Still didn’t answer that one either.

More CO2 than 800,000 years ago, but not hotter. Didn’t answer that.

How many thousands of stations has the NOAA lost? Didn’t answer that one either.

Why is there more sea ice than last year? Never even touched that one did you.

Attack the link

Attack the poster

Avoid the question

Which will it be this time cosmos?

Gore is an idiot. He’s turned into a parody of himself.

Hillarious to think of what he’s become, a shill for global warming in a period of global cooling.

Sad that so many people have no clue other than to believe his crap.

Scarey, really scarey to think this nitwit was one vote away from the presidency!

I think that the Al Gore haters, like that Tennessee Policy Institute – whose only policy seems be attacking a Nobel Prize winner and former Vice-President of the United States – are the ones who have become the parody of themselves.

It seems that they can’t even tell an increase from a decrease… but it doesn’t matter since they just have an axe to grind anyway.. and they have no end of loyal “copy and paste’ers …

I won’t even touch the ‘nitwit with the presidency’ remark… the joke is way too obvious……

Hell, “HLP” –

Come clean.

The only basis for your hard-on against Climate Change activists is Al Gore has become a spokesman for green energy strategies and technologies.

If Al Gore came out and said something nice about herding dogs you’d invite “Boy” over to shoot all of yours.

Were Al Gore to tell the world he likes barbecued ribs, you’d become a vegan.

If it dawned on you that Al Gore is a heterosexual you’d hightail it down to the bus station and cruise for teenaged runaways. Practicing your Larry Craig “Wide Stance” in the men’s room.

Well, it seems the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has a Wichita connection.

It is funded by oil millionaires….

“TCPR president Jason “Drew” Johnson previously served as an “Institute for Humane Studies Koch Fellow.”

The Koch Family Foundations, in particular, have donated millions of dollars to the IHS.

Koch Industries, a company with a dismal environmental record … in January 2000, Koch Industries agreed to pay $30 million, “the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states.”

mediamatters.org/items/200703020001

“Practicing your Larry Craig “Wide Stance” in the men’s room.”

I don’t think making fun of homos is helpful.

Monkey
Your analogy does not hold up.
Henry Ford was not trying to make horses, or horse feed, more expensive.
Henry Ford did not ask for a “cap and trade” system, to tax horses, in order for Ford to receive a subsidy, to build cars.

typical hate filled diatribe from capn:

Dear CON idiots–

When you fill up a big car with six or eight people, you get a higher fuel efficiency than when you put one person in a Honda Civic.

Try thinking for a change.

Thank you,

The Management

Question…what proof do you have that there were 6 or 8 people in each of goracles large vehicles?? None..of course, but, when have the facts ever bothered you?

Allow the coal plants but build them upwind and in sight of the finest country club golf courses in KC, Topeka and Wichita.

“It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.”

Another example of why conservatives are too intellectually weak to deal with the issues. Wind is reliable, and if, on the rare occasion that wind becomes extinct there is solar power and if the sun burns out then we don’t have anything to worry about. There is also air compression. Excess energy can be used to compress air which can turn turbines to generate electricity when the other methods are producing power.

As usual Paul, you are out of your league. Just stand aside and let the grown ups take over.

Maggot what libs just refuse to acknowledge is that conservatives have never advocated not developing new energy sources. We have said a solution 10 years away will not address our needs now. Our economy depends on fossil fuels. I know the libs find this objectionable but believe me this is what pays the taxes that the libs plan to utilize to spread socialized medicine if Obama is elected. It is what the libs plan to use for handouts for those ‘who can’t help themselves’.

And, in WW2, HITLER did use “new technology” — Hitler made liquid fuel out of coal — something you greens do not want us to do!

Hey maggot…and how much has the price of gas gone DOWN since Pelosi and company took control of the House?

Your simple generalizations are not worthy efforts of a 5th grader. And you call yourself an adult?

Not all conservatives are the spawn of the devil, and not all liberals walk on water–I know that is a horrifying thought to you, but if you take off your hate filled blinders you might see some truth in that.

“Franklin” comes up with –

Name the “tax give aways” that you think Congress “gives” to the oil industry, would you please?

In the interest of bandwidth, I’ll make this short.

Let’s start with accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years).

And let’s not forget Big Oil will receive between 63.2 and 390 billion dollars in subsidies from the US government.

Details here:
http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy

“Show us just ONE study, from anyone, that says that wind power can ever provide a majority of our electricity.”

Sure Paul, it took me less than a minute to find one.

http://www.mtpc.org/offshore/final_09_20.pdf

Do you know what a “working interest” is, Monkey?

That simply means that you are “at risk” for loss greater than the amount invested, in most cases. In the case of oil drilling, this risk of loss is generally covered by insurance, as it is a very dangerous business.

Anyway, you have proven my point.

You consider 100% of the revenue from any business to be taxable, by what you have posted.

ALL of the “subsidies” that you list are deductions from REVENUES, very similar to what other businesses enjoy.

The difference, with oil, is not that hard to understand:

Boeing must “depreciate” a huge capital investment in equipment or a new building, over several years time. This makes sense, as Boeing will be in the SAME PLACE during that period of time. This makes sense because Boeing will not be drilling a “dry hole” and need to close down and move after such a failure.

In the oil exploration business, the accounting would be a mess if you had to list capital expenses on your books from wells that never produced.

Every penny deducted, in a “working interest” transaction, is “at risk” of COMPLETE LOSS to the investor.
However, if the well is successful, that investment cost and equipment write off remains the same amount, and the revenues are generated quicker than if all the capital of the company was tied up, due to tax depreciation schedules.

The oil industry generates HUGE amounts of tax revenue.

Anything you do to hurt the oil industry will result in a REDUCTION of tax revenues.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with reducing our dependence on oil. Regardless of climate change, reducing CO2, and the rest of the polluting gasses can only help the air, water and land in this country. I’ve called for a Manhattan project on alternative, renewable energy sources for a long time.

It still strikes me as hypocritical the Republicans somehow fail to see where over 70% of our energy dollars are going, and what much of it is funding. With the war on terrorism going on, and our money paying for such things as Iranian missiles and IEDs, I would think they would be the first to endorse alternative energy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But I guess paying some country to blow up American service men and women means less that their pocketbooks. Somehow, I think their priorities are just a bit off.

Paul, are the oil companies producing enough tax revenue to cover the cost of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands dead to get them those no-bid contracts in Iraq? Our entire military is one huge subsidy to provide security in oil regions so those companies can make a profit. Somehow I don’t think the oil companies provide the over $500 billion a year to pay for the military.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.philosophy.humanism/2007-11/msg00184.html
———————-
Maggot the above link gives some very good information on what we can expect on the wind front. It isn’t going to produce tomorrow what we need today.

As you can see the only Americans listed are that staunch demo family, the Kenndys. It would appear that they have ran out of hold cards because the Cape Cod project is going forward.

We are all in this together and a solution will be a joint effort.

Paul, I’m assuming you are talking about my link. I’m surprised you read all 35 pages so quickly. So I doubt you read it, then again, you have proven you have poor reading comprehension. So let me to the hard work for you since you are a conservative, hence, mentally lazy.

The study said offshore wind power has the potential to produce 900,000 megawatts which is more than the output of all the power plants combined. Keep in mind that is measuring only the offshore wind. So if we throw onshore wind power then that increases the number greatly.

The top 20 states have the potential to generate 16,818 mw of electricity.

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf

Given that study was done in 1991 and the technological advances made since then then the number should be higher.

But it’s not like facts would ever deter you.

It is an interesting study, maggot….but haven’t we seen people in Kansas object to wind generators because they are ‘unsightly’? Wouldn’t the same people block off shore wind generators? It is certainly worth the effort–especially here in Kansas with the unending wind…if we can build them.

“over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

Steven
The Democrat Party puts the lie to your previous post.
Why do Dems want to “sue OPEC” to force higher production, if higher production will not lower price?
Why do Dems want to take oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if that will not reduce prices?

Tell me how the world market for oil knows the difference between oil that comes straight out of a well, and oil that comes out of the salt mines of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would you please?

Also, if we do NOT produce our own oil, we are walking away from billions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands upon thousands of jobs.

One other thing, libs —
There are some oil well owners that do not WANT more drilling.
Why should they?

All the gold in Fort Knox would be worthless if we found a volcano that spurted out gold.

Why would the owner of producing wells want more oil drilling? Some do, those who will do drilling in other places. — Some don’t. Those that do not have very many good leases to explore, today, would prefer to get “top dollar” for the oil wells that the already have.

If I own a gold mine, do I want a large gold mine to be discovered, anywhere else on the globe, outside of my personal ownership?

The tendency for people to try and “corner the market” is natural. It is human. It is to be expected.

This is why competition and anti-trust law enforcement is important.

It is ironic: Those who profit MOST from the price of oil, today, profit from the greens who will not let us drill, today, for our needs, tomorrow!

“Wind power can not power my car.”

No, it can recharge batteries in electric cars so in that sense it can power a car. With residential turbines and solar panels a person with an electric car would never again have to pay anyone to fuel up their car. That’s why many politicians, who have been paid off by the oil and coal companies, oppose measures to increase incentives for investing in alternative energy. It’s no surprise that in Kansas it’s the Republicans that constantly block net metering laws.

Why would Bush veto the ‘use it or lose it’ provision for oil leases?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717162225AAupcxK

Maggot
I did not “admit” that anyone was hording.
I said that COMPETITION stopped most producers from wanting to “hord” — since they would only leave the production profits for other competitors, if they did not participate.

The government MANDATES competition in the federal mineral leases through the BLM.

In that case, anyone who does NOT make use of the lease, productively, will not be subject to forfeiture of the lease, through what the courts have deemed an “implied covenant” to produce!

Ranchers and farmers who receive royalties, from their oil, might not want more drilling.

They will not profit from more production. They might benefit from reduced fuel prices but — it depends on production.

I am only making the point that T. Boone Pickens is a smart guy, but he has profited greatly from you greens.

Paul, why do you put “hord” in quotes as if you were quoting me. I know how to spell hoard. The entire point of your post was to describe how companies would sit on wells waiting for the oil prices to increase. Do you know what the definition of hoard is?

Thanks for proving that you can’t even keep your own story straight. You flip-flop almost as much as McCain.

Linda
From a previous thread on the economy:
—-
Franklin
Posted July 16, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
There are “implied covenants” in ANY oil and gas lease or any mineral lease.
Even if NOT included in the lease contract, the courts have held than ANY lease holder has the right to terminated a lease for lack of production, after a period of time:

http://www.mosburgoil-gas.com/html/mosburg_primer_ogl4_11_96_2a.html

“What Are These “Implied Covenants”? The covenants that are generally implied in the modern Oil & Gas Lease — again, absent an express provision in the lease nullifying such an implied covenant or otherwise expressly covering its subject matter — are as follows:

The Implied Covenant to Protect Against Drainage (the Implied Covenant to Offset)

The Implied Covenant to Further Develop

The Implied Covenant to Market

The Implied Covenant of Prudent Operations.

Each of these covenants imposes an obligation on the Lessee to act as a reasonable prudent operator in each of these areas. This imposes a three-fold obligation: to act in good faith, to act competently, and to take into account (though not as a “fiduciary”) the legitimate interests of the lessor.

Under this standard:

The Lessee is required to offset a well which is draining the leased premises if a prudent operator would drill an offset (i.e., if it appears that the offset would likely be profitable). 3

The Lessee is required to drill additional locations and to drill to other formations if a prudent operator would take that action . 4

The Lessee must make reasonable efforts to market the production. 5

The Lessee must conduct operations in a diligent and proper manner . 6

Remedies for Breach.Damages are nearly always available for breach of the Implied Covenants, with the measure being the amount of royalties that the Lessor would have received if it were not for the improper conduct.7 However, in most states, cancellation of the lease will also be allowed as an alternative remedy.

When cancellation is being sought, the Lessor must give the Lessee notice, and an opportunity to correct. If the court orders cancellation of the lease, the order will usually be in the form of an alternative decree, under which the Lessee will be given an opportunity to correct the breach.
—–
This is true even if NOT stated in the contract.

The BLM or Federal Bureau of Land Management is in charge of virtually all mineral leases, on federal land.

BLM contracts generally contain a production clause and a forfeiture clause, in writing.

Even if they don’t — the courts have held that the oil company MUST produce, or forfeit the lease.

BLM has the same right, today, under the law, as any farmer or rancher to terminated a lease for lack of production, no further Act of Congress is necessary.

Maggot
I am not flipping or flopping.

I am telling you that competition is promoted by our current system of granting leases.

I am telling you that any company that tries to “hoard” oil, by not producing a lease, can risk the forfeiture of that lease.

I am telling you that a FEW players, in the business, might not be in a big hurry to drill more wells, if they have NO good prospects.

NOBODY wants to drill a “dry hole” —

Opening up more land for oil and mineral leasing will promote more production.

There are forces at work which PREVENT hoarding.

Competition is the most important force.

Opening up more land for mineral leases is an important way to promote such competition.

Our anti-trust laws prevent price fixing, another important way to avoid hoarding or price fixing.

Maggot
Exxons argument was that they DID work the lease.
That would prevent forfeiture of the lease.

Also, you need to study the mineral lease concept of “implied covenants” posted above.

JM
Where do you get your “10 year” projection?
I know the media and the libs in Congress keep telling us that it will take that long.

It won’t.

Also, I have no problem with alternatives.

If you are not in the crowd that wants to punish oil and coal, while we develop alternatives, I do apologize.

However, you seemed, for a moment, to be leaning in the direction of punishing carbon based fuel.

Maggot, this is from YOUR Link:

“But a Superior Court judge in December ordered state officials to weigh other options before stripping the leases. Two months later, Exxon submitted its 23rd development plan.

The proposal involved a $1.2 billion gas recycling and condensate production project to be developed over six years. The company said it had already secured a drilling rig and planned to begin development this year.”
—-
So, the government rejects 22 previous development plans, and then claims that there is a “lack of production”??

Also, please study the pipeline issue.

This new Alaskan pipeline is the sticking point.

Without a new pipeline, there is no reason to produce anything. There is no way to move the natural gas to market!

5 to 10 years. Did you notice the number 10? Silly boy, you’ve filled my tolerance for stupidity this evening, I’ll let someone else play with you.

“Maybe you should learn to READ before spewing your garbage, ws”

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Raptor.

OBVIOUSLY, my paraphrase of your comment was directed at the conservative element that dismisses all liberals, and was not directed specifically at you. Further, it was OBVIOUSLY tongue-in-cheek.

I didn’t realize that you were so sensitive – in the future, I will refrain from responding to or addressing any of your comments.

Damn, have a nice day.

Study in Great Britain on Wind Power.

he most obvious concern just now is how the plan will be carried out. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard points out in The Daily Telegraph, there are only three major manufacturers in the world able to make the large turbines needed offshore – and one of them, German engineering giant Siemens, has already sold out until 2012. On top of that, the world has only one ship able to place these 200-ton turbines.

But even if we solve the logistical problems, we will still need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations to back up the grid when the wind isn’t blowing. While the wind farms will be spread over a greater land mass in Britain than in Denmark, increasing the chance that the wind will always be blowing in one area or another, the system will still be unreliable.

A Renewable Energy Foundation study of wind speeds in 2005 found that they varied so much that the back-up demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56 GW in a single month. That would mean switching a 1,000 MW coal plant on and off 23 times to make up for the shortfall.

The introduction of a national computerised system (or ‘intelligent’ grid) to manage the power load could improve reliability. But the best hope for Britain may be to eventually hook our grid up to Europe’s network, enabling excess wind in one country to compensate for slumps in another. Until then, Brown’s lofty ambitions may remain a pipe dream.
Is wind power as green as it seems?

Demark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.

In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.

The ten years have nothing to do with politics. More oil production means more refineries, the distribution system to get the oil from the wells to the refineries. The distribution system to get the refined products into the system. There have been NO refineries built for twenty five years.

Remember when the refinery in Parsons was shut down because of flooding? We don’t have the capacity to process new oil.

Those, in themselves require a long list of hoops to jump through, Why? because of past practice where environmental damage quite literally ruined the environment. That, and right-of-way purchases. That will take five to seven years, if not longer, to get approved. Then the building can start. Think one or more refineries can be built in less than two to three years? Pipelines laid? Ten years total, easy. That ain’t politics: that’s facts.

“Your pathetic attempt at ’spin’ is transparent and pathetic.”

Let’s try this, Mr. Raptor. Please accept my sincerest apology for the misunderstanding – my comment was meant to be HUMOROUS and was not directed specifically at you.

With that, it is obvious that for whatever reason, I get under your skin, so, in the future, I shall refrain from addressing you in any manner.

As I said, have a nice day.

BTW Raptor,

Welcome back.

I hope you know it wasn’t I that made that horrible statement about you, when the Libs fled the blog to join their “Fister” group.

Just glancing at the statements from the Libs here on the blog, you can clearly see all they want to do on this blog is attack other posters and make incredibly stupid, ad hominem remarks.

……the “attack master” is beyond a shadow of a doubt little jimmy mccluer.

Leach off the government today troll-boy?

…in regard to what JWink?

One reason for vetoing? the use it or lose it proposal is it is probably not Constitutional. Leases are just that leases: they have a stated time period. If not, they are grants.

…….here’s my e-mail: Apophis47@yahoo.com

#
Apophis
Posted July 18, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

……the “attack master” is beyond a shadow of a doubt little jimmy mccluer.

Leach off the government today troll-boy?
—————————
A bit hypocritical don’t you think, being as your salary is drawn from local and state government?

Gosh, we need more turbine blades? I wonder if there is an industry in Wichita that has any experience in designing and building large structures that interface with wind and air?

Maybe wind energy could create new jobs for Americans – remember the old American “know-how” we used to be so proud of?

Nah, fergit it let’s punch more holes in the ground. The Chinese will be needing to buy our oil.

Blue,
“I would bet money that Paul F. Rosell is a paid shill for the fossil fuels industry.”

Nah, he’a a door-to-door insurance salesman. Flacking for fossil fuels is just a hobby.

“We have no idea yet what truly massive use of wind energy may do to the climate.”

Well…. if that dont beat all… big propeller spins and spins… all the spinning from the WIND… and that would effect the climate in what way??

I am hoping that was a satirical comment??

But Jed, the same wind will blow, with or without a wind generator propeller… So, with that logic, just the wind will effect the climate, yes??

Chas,
winds get their energy from the warming of the earth by the sun, and the rotation of the earth. When you stick a propeller-driven generator into that wind, the consequence of the propeller blades’ turning is a small slowing of the wind due to loss of the energy gained by the generator+ the energy lost in the process, according to the laws of thermodynamics. While one windmill, or even a hundred will not have a perceptible impact, when we start building hundreds of thousands of the monsters all over the world, something’s gonna happen, and we may not like it. Keep in mind, there really is no such thing as a free lunch!

Capn
Your very link makes clear that wind can not take over 100% of our electricity needs.
My “experts” say 10% is probably reasonable.
Your “experts” say 25% is POSSIBLE.

Either way, you are still a far cry from 100%.

And, my original argument is:

Wind can NOT supply 100% of our electricty needs!

Alger Gore, quite possibly the stupidest man to ever rise to high office in the history of the republic and without a doubt the biggest hypocrite. And thats saying a lot.

their there more coffee needed lol

Old technology?

How long have the Dutch had wind mills?

How long have people used the sun to dry animal skins?

How long have people used wind power to sail a ship?

“…the consequence of the propeller blades’ turning is a small slowing of the wind due to loss of the energy gained by the generator…”

Jed, I respectfully disagree… The wind speed is not slowed down by turning a prop blade… The direction of that wind might well be slightly misdirected, but wind speed is not lessened by the generator blades… I am not a physicist, but I know that a solid object cannot stop wind speed… It might divert it, but the wind speed not touching the blade will not be effected as to deflection…

The other source of energy that is being way under-rated is solar… One cna only imagine the results of energy reduction if even half of the homes in just Wichita were to switch to solar energy to heat hot water…

And, if a local power source is used to heat the water in the tank over night, instead of power from the “grid” then there is also that reduction….

I think the reduction would be quite significant…

The ‘drill here drill now’ camp is nothing less than Newt Gingrich trying to get a shallow slogan issue that takes advantage of rising gas prices. And let’s be clear, in the presidential race neither candidate (or for that matter Gingrich himself) can be considered a global warming skeptic (remember what I said about the hopefully shrinking number of coalition conservatives continuing to deny the evidence regarding global warming? The broad agreement, in the reality of the issue if not the solution, can increasingly be found among politicians both left and right-while those who insist on being skeptics are increasingly demonstrated nitwits like James Inhofe).

The question is, if we put the effort into it, can we significantly cut carbon emissions and cut our dependency on carbon fuels? The answer to that question is clearly yes. The technology already exists, it simply needs to become more widespread. The barriers involve more retooling of some infrastructure and improving consumer and company access to some technologies far more than developing new technologies.

Whether Gore’s goal is reasonable or not (and I personally suspect it is), I think it is a worthy goal to shoot for. But, it will take political will of the sort I am not sure we have.

“Here, my Summer electric bill is over $200 a month!! Quite a difference…”
Chas, ever consider that you are already in Hell and the air conditioner, even running at over $200/mo. isn’t going to make much difference.

Chas
A “swamp cooler” as they call it, will not work well in Kansas.
Actually, the so called “swamp cooler” is not very useful in a swamp, or anywhere with high humidity.
That device uses water evaporation to cool the home. Works great in an arid desert — not so well in a humid enviroment where one of the biggest problems is humidity, in the first place!

Are there any companies in Wichita that sell/install solar panels on residences? I checked on findsolar.com and didn’t find any.

Here is a great idea: Sewage Methane!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/21/plant-turn-sewer-gas-fuel/

econ posted July 19, 2008 at 5:36 pm

“solar water heaters”?
Dad had one, he installed it back when Carter’s tax breaks were in effect.
They didnt save that much, back then, and they had leak, rust and corrosion problems.
We had it removed a few years ago.

It is not worth doing, without a tax break of some sort.

The technology hasnt changed much, in 30 years.
—————

LOL!!!

econ is stuck in the past. Maybe he still uses a rotary dial phone, like they did 30 years ago?

If solar were practical on homes people actually live in people would be doing it.
People aren’t doing it.
Therefore, simple logic cosmos…solar is not practical on homes people actually live in.

I have a friend who put one in also…did not work well long term, caused lots of problems and was an eyesore on his house until he paid to have it ripped off.

“What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don’t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/opinion/19herbert.html?hp

Actually, a solar water heater in combination with a fast water heater is probably the best option for most households.

The water heating system that we largely use now is stupifyingly antiquated. It is wasteful of both energy AND water.

I went looking for a quote.

And FOUND a better one.

“A revolution is coming — a revolution which will be peaceful if we are wise enough; compassionate if we care enough; successful if we are fortunate enough — But a revolution which is coming whether we will it or not. We can affect its character; we cannot alter its inevitability.

Robert Kennedy

And what I was looking for?

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Recapitulated by Robert Kennedy

The endeavor to end the dinosaur fuel age will have similar experiences for us. In just the effort, we will become better as a nation and a people.

“There are those who will face this realistically. There are others who will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.”

BlueJay

You know, regardless of what greenhouse do to the environment, if anything, I would imagine doing whatever it takes to wean us off our addiction to oil could only make this nation a better place. But with the infighting crap I see here, my take is very few of you can actually see the forest for the trees.

Wake up people, with $7 a gallon gas around the corner, how many people are going to loose jobs because no one can afford food, transportation and clothing? Damn near everything produced or grown has fossil fuels behind them. And we’re still growing corn for fuel! How stupid are we anyway? We ain’t even near the age of reason yet.

I listened to Al Gore’s speech. Al still has that same speaking style. You know, where he sounds like Uncle Doofus talking to fifth graders? I just shake my head when I look at America’s political leaders.

Gore’s Bold, Unrealistic Plan to Save the Planet

But doing it in 10 years? If the earlier, personal solutions to global warming — drive a hybrid, put in better insulation — were far too little, Gore’s goal seems far too much. Less than 28% of our power currently comes from carbon-free sources, and the vast majority of that is hydroelectric and nuclear. High-tech renewables account for less than 3%. Wind and solar are growing far faster than fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, but considering that we don’t even know if economical carbon capture and storage will ever be possible, it’s hard to see how Gore’s target is remotely attainable. This isn’t negative thinking, or fiction put out by the oil industry. This is reality.

Night terrors aside, the 10-year target is a mistake for strategic reasons. It feeds into the perception still held by a large number of Americans that Gore is an alarmist, and alarmists can be ignored. Such a wildly ambitious goal sets us up for failure, and obscures the fact that the battle against climate change won’t be won in a decade, or even two — it will last for the foreseeable future and beyond. (And if you think Gore has thoughts about returning to the political arena, forget it. His speech couldn’t have come at a worse time for Democrats, who are already fighting off accusations that they’re insensitive to rising gas prices.)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1824132,00.html?cnn=yes

outlander seems to be in the world of selective copy/pasting.

outlander’s link,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1824132,00.html?cnn=yes

“But the Apollo comparison, while great for speeches, only underscores how different the climate challenge will be. The moon shot called for focused scientific resources for a single target. Outside Houston and Cape Canaveral, most of us just watched. But decarbonizing our energy supply will require innovation, funding and sacrifice at every level of society. It will be long and arduous, and even if it works, we won’t be rewarded with stirring film of a man on the moon.
The spoils of this fight will be a world that will perhaps be less worse off than it would have been had nothing been done. What we most need is time to make these changes, but that’s what we’ve squandered. If only someone else had been President these past eight years — someone like, well, Al Gore.”

Boxlock
Posted July 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
“Here, my Summer electric bill is over $200 a month!! Quite a difference…”
Chas, ever consider that you are already in Hell and the air conditioner, even running at over $200/mo. isn’t going to make much difference.
==========================================

Boxlock — you ever consider that you are one worthless POS on this Blog??? I dont know of much of anybody that amounts to anything who isnt looking to reduce energy cost… and consumption….

Well, maybe YOU you POS are an exception… Self-centered PIG!!

Swamp coolers are outdated and have potential to carry infectious airborne bacteria, molds and mildews because they are based on humidity.

Unless they are of huge design (which is maintenance nightmare) swamp coolers are only for very small areas and the cool air that is blown across the water rapidly heats up as it cannot overcome environmental heat more than a few linear feet.

We had them when we lived in West Texas, they sucked. They only way to get cool was to stand right in front of them.

Reggie,
Swamp coolers, poor families AC, do work in arid climates like the New Mexican desert. They cool by evaporating large quantities of water and hopefully cooling the air blown over the evaporators. Here in Kansas, the ambient humidity is generally too high for them to be very effective. Still, they’re a whole lot cheaper to buy and operate than a central air unit.

Look libs, there is a VERY easy way to get conservatives on your side, at least partially:

Come up with an “alternative” that makes economic sense.

I like money. I do not like to spend money. Save me money, on a product or service, and I will BUY it.

I do not give a rats rear if that purchase will inflate the ego and bank account of some doom-and-gloom global warming nut.

Save me money, and I will do it on my own. I am just warning you libs to avoid the mandates.

I know you will ignore that warning. Jimmy Carter paved the way for Ronald Reagan, after all.

Jed
Ever notice all of those attorneys that advertise on television?
Ever notice those attorneys that say they know how to get money out of the government, if you were denied a claim?
Why don’t you show any of this anger and bitterness towards government programs that deny claims?
Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security deny benefits ALL THE TIME!

By the way, I am an independent agent. I often find myself on the side of my clients, against an insurance company.

No organization is or can be perfect. However, far, far more good than bad has come from insurance companies, in America.

Insurance companies are a stabelizing force, in the economy. Insurance companies tend to be stronger than banks, credit unions, brokerage firms or any other financial firm.

The vast majority of claims ARE granted, by private insurance companies.

However, if you file for Social Security Disability payments, expect to be rejected on your first application.

econ posted July 20, 2008 at 1:33 am

“Produce as much energy as we possibly can, from every source available.”
———–

It’s cheaper to reduce the demand for energy than buy it.

JR
HUH?
You are one of the most anti-military, anti-war left of center people on this Blog.
And you try to rally YOUR cause by bringing up our war effort, in WW2?

First of all, support for the United States entering WW2 was very weak, until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Then, we FIRST attacked Germany, not Japan.

And, the USSR, our supposed “allie” would not let us use Russian soil to attack Japan, but the USSR felt free to “claim” Japanese territory, after the United States defeated Japan!

And, this entire time, the United States fired up HUGE coal plants, and pumped a great deal of oil, and we made a great deal of steal.

I am 100% in SUPPORT of re-industrializing the United States.

It is the liberals that make it nearly impossible to generate our own energy, or produce our own manufacturing products.

Besides, the cost/benefit analysis that I asked for, concerning global warming taxes, is a very valid request to make, of anyone asking for “sacrifice” or “change” —

I agree that WW2 was WORTH the cost.

Global Warming taxes are NOT worth the cost.

Only a raving lunitic will claim that global warming is a larger threat to the human race than the Axis Powers.

Also, we could DO something about the Axis powers.

There is NOTHING we can do about the climate.

Absolutely, positively NOTHING.

You’ve already lost paulie.

And you know it too.

People like you are being looked at increasingly not just as simple vocal opposition.

You’re a type we just can’t afford anymore.

You are standing in the way of progress. You are an obstacle.

You know what happens when an unstoppable force meets an object that won’t move don’t you?

Change is gonna roll over you like a bus over a road apple.

BlueJay is still and incompetent jackass-

http://icantforthelifeofmefigureouthowacandidateschoiceoflapeljewelrymakesadifference,/

Progress?

JR, you are anti-industrial, anti-growth, anti profit, anti-production —

YOU, JR, are “anti-progress” not me.

I am all for alternatives.

Compete. Show us what you got!

You got nothing, absolutely nothing that can substitute for carbon based fuels.

The most interesting “new technologies” out there are directed at shale oil and methane ice. BOTH of these sources are carbon-based.

We will use MORE carbon, in the future, not less.

You? You flatter yourself. You are not for “progress” — You are for retreat. You are for the complete destruction of the American economy.

BJ
Here is a “lump of coal” for you:

http://www.sunflower.net/News/2008/FICOCourtDecisionAirPermit.pdf

econ,

Is it cheaper to invest $12 (in 2000 $) to save each barrel of oil, or buy that barrel at $140, or higher?

http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
“Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives
for the other half, requires four integrated steps:

* Double the efficiency of using oil. The U.S. today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975; with the latest proven efficiency technologies, it can double oil efficiency all over again.
The investments needed to save each barrel of oil will cost only $12 (in 2000 $), less than half the officially forecast $26 price of that barrel in the world oil market.”

GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE

“Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.

Instead of a rise of 1°F during the first decade of this century as predicted by IPCC climate models (Fig 2), global temperatures cooled slightly for the past nine years and cooled more than 1°F this year (Fig 3). Global cooling over the past decade appears to be due to a global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool mode and a similar shift in the Atlantic. The IPCC’s prediction of a 1° F warming by 2011, will require warming of about 1° F in the next three years and unless that happens, the IPCC models will be proven invalid.”

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

Climate science is such swiss cheese. Against this backdrop of cooling global temperatures and energy scarcity, Al Gore tries to gin up the sense of urgency.

Let’s get started building the nuclear power plants.

You are asking silly questions Cosmos. What is your point? Is the graph inaccurate? In what way?

Or do you not have a clue? I really want to know.

outlander,

I was just wondering what months Easterbrook included for 2008 — and I also don’t think it’s accurate to treat a few months the same as an entire year.

Easterbrook’s PDO isn’t the only forcing, and it does not explain the observed long-term warming trend.

‘Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html

Please share your delight with Grady’s excellent post by using a junk email address, and sending large attachments to:

postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com postmaster@hotelspm.com

Thanks!