U.S. based oil corps are exporting record amounts of gasoline

[SHRED]

---

Again, for anyone to think it's "our" oil is living in a simplistic and ignorant dream.
More proof that the rhetoric coming from this petroleum-based administration and McCane of "drill, drill, drill", as a way to benefit the American people, is simply nonsense in the context of the world oil market.

----

As Oil Firms Seek Drilling Access, Exports Set Record
By Reuters
Reuters
| 03 Jul 2008 | 03:23 PM ET

While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, U.S.-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

"We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," President Bush told reporters this week. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25518912


----

[atreides1]

1. It's Almost Funny

You never hear this reported in the news.

[indepat]

15. The joke is on all Americans, especially the ones still supporting the vast criminal enterprise

:D

[fasttense]

2. But we need to destroy all our national parks and wilderness areas

on the off chance we can get more oil and export it? Just another con sold by the republican party. This time McCain was selling us a con. And who said McCain isn't just like the bushes?

[carlyhippy]

3. amazing

this really makes me angry....this needs to be shouted loud and clear so every american knows and understands just how corrupt things have become.

[SHRED]

4. Oil corporations are not beholen to the USA

---

They are beholden to their shareholders in the context of the world market.
They maximize profit and if that means sacrificing country affiliation you can bet they will in a heartbeat.

Why is that so difficult for the American people to understand?
Why do they listen to the bullshit claim of more drilling here?

----

[bullimiami]

5. and what do we get as a country for this oil which is being pumped out from under us?

id guess scant little. otoh i also guess we subsidize these same companies to make it cheaper for them to operate so their profits will be bigger when they sell the oil to someone else.

[SHRED]

7. not just oil but refined oil...gas, diesel, etc...

[SHRED]

6. Remember "refinery capacity"

They always pin lack of on "environmentalists".
Another red herring as proved in this article.

[Lasher]

11. That's the whole point, and a good one.

The article really doesn't address where the crude is coming from. But this provides a good rebuttal when industry shills whine because we haven't built any new refineries recently.

They are selling to the highest bidder, and they can be counted on to always do the same. This is the key point. Under this arrangement we can do nothing to bring US gas prices down. Global prices rise and fall together. So you should ask yourself, why should we sacrifice the ANWR and other areas to insignificantly lower gas prices worldwide?

[LibertyLover]

8. Gods - it reminds me of histories I've read about the potato crop failure in Ireland

While people were starving, Ireland was still exporting food to England. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[Romulox]

10. Ireland's economy was run for the benefit of foreign investors...sound familiar? nt

[Romulox]

9. Free trade means that we compete with people outside the US

Free trade drives wages down while driving commodity prices up.

Sick of right-wing hack economists who pretend that "free trade" is the new version of the miracle of fish and loaves.

[marmar]

12. Corporations know allegiance to no flag, just to the almighty dollar, or euro, or yen, or pound.....

n/t

[sourmilk]

13. What a batch of juvenile BS. What part of "CONTRACT" don't you understand?

If a US MNC has a CONTRACT to ship, they are required, BY INTERNATIONAL LAW, to ship. Why do you think that the USA gets over 70% of Canada's oil production? Simply because we like you?

Sheesh!

[eridani]

14. So, why were the contracts to ship abroad made in the first place?

Isn't that the actual issue?

[sourmilk]

16. For a country who praises the free market, above all else...

to restrict international trading in oil futures contracts on international markets would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

You sell to whomever buys at the price, OBVIOUSLY.

Ho-ly SHIT. What country do you live in again?

[eridani]

36. Most of us poor saps who just live here prefer regulated markets

Unfortunately our economic overlords do not.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

17. Uh...

You are a rude S.O.B.

Just placing the info on this site does not make the OP "juvenile" --- Maybe you should make an attempt at a reasoned argument before you call names and act like the ugly Canadian.

[Hannah Bell]

35. The US doesn't get 70% of Canadian production.

Last year Canada produced: 158.9 million tons
They consumed 102.3 million tons (= 64%)

They imported 66.7 million tons (crude & product)
Non-consumed + imports = 56.6 + 66.7 = 123.3 million tons

They exported 121.3 million tons.

Of that, 119.7 went to the US.

i.e. they're importing oil, processing it, & re-exporting it.

Figures from 2008 bp review of world energy.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2008.pdf


you really shouldn't be so rude.

it's funny contracts suddenly went up by double-digit percents in 2005, 2006, & 2007, when they'd previously been flat.

Especially when total world demand was only up about 1% in each year.

[HamdenRice]

41. "BY INTERNATIONAL LAW" -- wrong

Most contracts entered into by multinational companies for international deliveries are governen by the laws of a state in the United States -- almost always New York.

I've even seen a contract between a Chinese company and a Brazilian company for the delivery of agricultural goods that chose New York law as the governing law.

Companies chose law that is predictable and that will be adjudicated in generally non-corrupt courts, so the default is generally New York.

There is not a well developed system of international contract law (if you don't include Admiralty, which is international but also U.S. federal law).

[Buns_of_Fire]

57. Well, gee, we were HOPING that was the reason!

I mean *sniff* if you guys don't like us anymore *sniff* that means that NOBODY likes us anymore! :cry:

*sniff* *sniff* Alright, we'll show you. *sniff* From now on, only FREEDOM BACON will be sold in the US!

So there! :P

[spin]

18. So how do we achieve energy Independence?

If we have to ship oil overseas and the demand for oil in China and India is growing, than drilling for more oil here will merely lead to sending more over there and we end up just running faster on the treadmill.

Thinking about this free trade global market thing is making my hair hurt (what little I have left).

[paparush]

22. We ship oil and gas to China and India, then use THEM as an excuse

not to enact strict carbon emissions.

Bush, et al, have got a stranglehold on the world.

[dysfunctional press]

19. there are probably a lot of countries that don't have oil refineries to make their own gasoline...

so they have to have it done elsewhere- like in the u.s. for example...

[Hydra]

21. When they are claiming that they don't have enough refining capacity to provide for us?

I don't care if they sell to the highest bidder- a monopoly is unlawful, however. So is lying to Congress to gain access to more product for pennies on the dollar(if that).

[dysfunctional press]

23. there are probably contracts and international agreements to be honored...

although another reason that the whole spiel about not building new refineries in 30+ years is disingenuous is that in the same time period they have been upgrading and expanding existing facilities- so while no new ones have been built, our refining capacity HAS increased.

[Hydra]

24. If contracts were a problem

They would say so. It benefits them more to claim that were are stripping their poor capacity to the bone(even though we are buying less every month). Also, they are limiting refining to 85% capacity even including these exports.

Any way you look at this, they are lying about what's going on to their benefit and creating an artificial shortage.

IMO, they can offshore to China and leave their unused drilling rights behind.

[dysfunctional press]

25. if a certain amount of refining capacity is contractually comitted to making gasoline for export...

why would it be a lie that more capacity is needed for domestic production?

[Hydra]

26. Why would they sell it as a percentage?

Better to sell as a set amount- especially now since you can renegotiate if they want more and charge more for it.

Also, the lie is this: they say they can't produce enough for us(thus the high price), but they actually cut refining capacity at various points when more was projected to be needed. On top of that, are screaming about lack of imports which is their justification for more drilling...but as an Astute DUer posted, there are THOUSANDS of unused approved drilling rights already- they want access to the hands off stuff like ANWR and the oil shale in my state in national forest areas.

I guess I'm not following your POV- where in all of this is there ANY shred of truth coming from these people?

[dysfunctional press]

30. how many of those "THOUSANDS of unused approved drilling rights" ...

are actually capable of producing oil?
and i don't believe that more drilling is the answer anyway.

but i was addressing refining capability- you do realize that it's nearly impossible to keep refineries operating continually at 100% capacity, right?
and i'm not saying that it's "set" as a certain percentage that's destined for export, just that it is a percentage, and that percentage may vary month to month, year too year, depending on the quantities that are refined.

what it comes down to is that americans have been paying way too little at the pump for way too long. admittidly, it's going to be a painful transition for a lot of people- but higher fuel prices are apparently the only thing that is going to spur the much needed development of alternatives.

[Hydra]

31. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x366362

I am aware of the problems of 100%- but is 90% asking too much? Apparently it is when they can make a buck off of it.

The reason I have problems with the higher prices is because it's NOT leading to changes. The rich can afford it, the poor get starved out, and the Oil companies are pushing hard for their favorite "alternatives"- ethanol, clean coal and nuclear, none of which I support.

I just see this as Enron all over again...and the evidence is piling up that it is so. We have to get these people out of the way so that we can get moving on clean renewables, not let them screw us yet again.

[dysfunctional press]

32. here i go what...?

the link you gave me was to someone else's diatribe, throwing around unsubstantiated numbers- two of the 4 links provided by the poster don't work at all, and there's NOTHING to back up the numbers he spouts in his post. I'm supposed to just take it on faith?

if the oil companies could be pumping out 13 billion barrels of oil now, they would if it was profitable.
and no, this isn't "enron" all over again- oil is a finite resource, and we've reached a point where worldwide annual demand is exceeding worldwide annual production- so yes, the price is going to keep going up...at least to a certain point, at which renewables and alternatives will be further developed, and the demand for oil will hopefully fall off to below what is capable of being produced, which will probably cause prices to fall.

what have you personally done to help with the development of alternatives that you DO support? and what are those alternatives?

[Hydra]

34. My bad

That was the second post by the same person that seemed to go into more depth. Here was his original source:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=388&Itemid=27

As to this not being Enron, during one week, 3 separate reports came out detailing how the oil companies were shorting us at the refineries, at the drilling sources and in transit. And why not? If oil reaches $200 a barrel(hell, why not $300 or even $400?), then they will probably triple their profit margin.

Nobody will ever hold these people accountable, not even if they run the economy into the ground, so what incentive do they have for playing by the rules?

As for the alternatives, I support solar, wind, wave, hydro(non-dam) and anything else in a similar vein. Where I live, we get 300 days of sunshine on average, so that's what we're going to do. I don't support Ethanol because of oil used to produce it, coal is a bad idea(Crandall Mine in my state) and Nuclear is an even worse one.

[Hannah Bell]

39. here's the numbers.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3w.htm

capacity utilization looks lower than historical average to me.

why do you think "painful transition" is the only way to get people to change their habits? particularly when the pain is unevenly distributed to fall hardest on those least able to bear it?

[dysfunctional press]

42. what is the historical average for refinery output in the u.s....?

you didn't post any link to what that would be. you apparently seem to be familiar with it- but most of us aren't.
it seems to me that the numbers show it mostly in the 90% range- which seems to be pretty good, considering the process that's going on.

btw- where did i say that a painful transition is "the only way to get people to change their habits"...?:shrug:

and what would be your solution, as far as avoiding a "painful transition", particularly for those "least able to bear it" ?

[Hannah Bell]

43. you can crunch the numbers to get the historical average for a given

time frame, but just eyeballing it, it looks like the last years are lower than the years before.

one not driven totally by price.

[dysfunctional press]

44. capacity has also increased in that time frame-

so while the percentage might be a point or two different, the actual amounts refined are greater.

[Hannah Bell]

45. not sure what your point is. mine is: we keep hearing stories about maxed

out refining capacity being part of the problem.

it's not.


next storyline.

[dysfunctional press]

46. running at about 90% could very well be "maxed out"...

maintenance, refitting, repair, accidents etc...having 10% of the capacity across the entire system "unavailable" at any one time would not be surprising.

[Hannah Bell]

47. "could be," but it's not. check the history.

Capacity Utilization (Monthly) -

Capacity utilization is calculated for the manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries. For a given industry, the utilization rate is equal to an output index divided by a capacity index. Output is measured by seasonally adjusted indexes of industrial production.

The capacity indexes attempt to capture the concept of sustainable practical capacity, which is defined as the greatest level of output that a plant can maintain within the framework of a realistic work schedule, taking account of normal downtime, and assuming sufficient availability of inputs to operate the machinery and equipment in place.

http://www.m-f-a.com/FinancialTerms.htm


CU has been on the low side for a while.

[dysfunctional press]

48. how long is "a while", and what do you consider to be "on the low side"...?

there are ups and downs- and there are myriad reasons for the downs as well. have you looked into any other factors that could be contributing to it- or have you just decided for yourself what the cause must be...?

[Hannah Bell]

53. The story I read in the media is refining capacity is tight. However,

all I have to do is look at the industry's own data to see it's not. Here's a graph which makes it more obvious: p. 19. Notice the downtrend in N. america since 2004/05 - the point where prices started spiking.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf

I can add another data point: refining margins, same page. This has to do with refining profit. Notice how Texas starts jumping, again around 04/05.

Now you tell me there could be many reasons, have I investigated x,y,z. Here's what I know: the story I hear in the media is false, by the industry's own data. I don't have to figure out why capacity was tighter 10 years ago to know it's not so tight now, contra the public story. & that refineries are increasing their profit margins.

[dysfunctional press]

56. so- you look at one small part of the overall picture, and make your own interpretations...

yeah, that makes sense...:eyes:

btw- what you call a "downtrend" in looking at that graph is barely noticeable- compared to the other regions charted, the u.s. graph is almost flat.

[Hannah Bell]

59. in '04 it's above the 90% line, about 92%. in 07, it's below the line,

about '88%. that's quite noticeable.

media reports say *US* capacity util is maxed out, but it's actually lower than trend.

the reports are talking about *US* cap util, so i'm not sure why you think it's necessary to "compare to other regions".

Eye-rolling icons are the last resort of those with no convincing data or arguments.

In april, US consumption dropped 3.9%, ~800,000 barrels per day. The entire 2007 *world* demand growth was ~900,000 barrels per day.

But whatever. Cap util is maxed out! Demand growth is exponential! Run for the hills!

[dysfunctional press]

60. you've already decided what you're going to believe, facts be damned.

keep looking at one small part of the overall picture, think what you want about it, and get as stressed out about the perceived treachery as you like. it makes no difference to me...:shrug: my driving habits won't change all that drastically until it goes over $10/gallon.

[Hannah Bell]

61. that's ironic. the media tells us refining capacity is tight, the industry's

data tells me it's not -

& you're telling me i've "already decided what i'm going to believe" while you ignore the discrepancy in the media accounts & the industry data.

you have no rebuttal but personal insults.

[dysfunctional press]

62. the data tells YOU it's not....

ergo it must be so...:eyes:

i definitely don't see what you're seeing in the numbers.
neither does the industry or the media.
definitely nothing to get hysterical about anyway...but you can if that's what makes you happy...:hi:
believe whatever you choose to believe- it's a free country.

[Hannah Bell]

63. You're apparently mathematically challenged, then.

average US capacity utilization 1st qtr:

1991: 85.3
1992: 86.9
1993: 91.2
1994: 92.4
1995: 92.5

1996: 93.8
1997: 94.7
1998: 95.2%
1999: 93.6% (lowest oil prices in 30 years in '99)
2000: 91.8

2001: 92.8
2002: 89.9
2003: 91.75

2004: 93.1
2005: 90.2
2006: 89.0
2007: 88.8
2008: 86.6


Average 1991-1995: 89.6%

Average 1996-2000: 93.8%

Average 2001-2003: 91.4%

Average 1991-2003: 91.6%

Average 1993-2003: 92.6%


AVERAGE 1991-2008: 91%


AVERAGE 2004-2008: 89.5

Lowest 5-year average & lower than average 1991-2008.


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wpuleus3w.htm

[dysfunctional press]

64. those numbers are one small piece of the overall picture- why are you so fixated on them?

do you even understand all the factors that can affect capacity and output?

it's not about ONE set of numbers, and i don't understand why that's so difficult for you to understand.

and btw- all of those numbers vary by between .1%-4%...if it's all the conspiracy you seem to want to see- they're certainly not very good at gaming the system.

[Hannah Bell]

67. This started with another poster saying weve been told refining capacity is tight,

so why are they refining for export?

You came back with: maybe they're contractually obligated to do so.

I introduced the numbers to show that, in fact, refining capacity ISN'T tight.

You've disputed this at each step, I have no idea why.

I'm "fixated" on the point because you keep disputing it.

I don't know what "overall picture" you're looking at, but I'm looking solely at capacity utilization.

[dysfunctional press]

68. the numbers you introduced show no such thing except in your opinion...

you seem to think that a minor fluctuation in one set of numbers is proof of deception.

you say you are looking solely at capacity utilization(forgoing ANY consideration of things such as maintenance, damage, weather, repair, upgrades, changes in formulation, etc. ALL things that can greatly affect your hallowed "capacity utilization".)
by looking solely at one set of numbers, you have no idea why those numbers are where they are, or even what they mean- but you've decided that you do know.

but you don't.

sorry.

[Hannah Bell]

70. i know what capacity utilization means; you apparently don't, since

you seem to think normal maintenance, downtime, etc. aren't figured into the potential (100%) capacity.

If they weren't, the number would be unusable & meaningless, & industry wouldn't collect it. But it's a standard industrial/business statistic - not only in the oil biz - & its collected precisely to compare performance over different time periods.

"sustainable practical capacity, which is defined as the greatest level of output that a plant can maintain within the framework of a realistic work schedule, taking account of normal downtime, and assuming sufficient availability of inputs to operate the machinery and equipment in place."

Here's what I know:

When industry talks of "refining capacity," it refers to this statistic.
Capacity utilization was below average 2004-2008, especially 2005-2008.
We were told it was above average.
That wasn't true.

[Hannah Bell]

71. This might help you:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm


Notice the lines labeled, & the definitions given:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_pnp_wiup_tbldef2.asp

Gross Inputs:

The crude oil, unfinished oils, and natural gas plant liquids put into atmospheric crude oil distillation units (1000's of barrels).


Capacity:

"The amount of capacity that, at the beginning of the period, is in operation; not in operation and not under active repair, but capable of being placed in operation within 30 days; or not in operation but under active repair that can be completed within 90 days. Operable capacity is the sum of the operating and idle capacity and is measured in barrels per calendar day or barrels per stream day."


Percent Operable Utilization:

Represents the utilization of all crude oil distillation units. The rate is calculated by dividing gross inputs to these units by the operating/operable refining capacity of the unit.


You can look through 18 years of capacity figures, if you like; you'll find capacity rises steadily, indicating expanding refining capability (more physical plant):

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wocleus2w.htm


You can compare them to 18 years of input figures:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgirius2w.htm


But there's no particular reason too; the figures are designed to make year-to-year comparison possible.

[Hydra]

20. You know, we could have used some of those exports...

But I suppose we are supposed to sacrifice and sacrifice so that people who do little or no work can continue to make massive profits.

Can I call capitalism "Not good for us" without getting showered with rotten tomatoes yet?

[robinlynne]

27. nationalize it, all of it.

[Hannah Bell]

28. I noticed the jump in exports in the numbers just last week:

1998: 1011 (thousand bpd)
1999: 956 (-5%)
2000: 890 (-7%)
2001: 910 (+2%)
2002: 904 (.7%)
2003: 921 (+2%)
2004: 991 (+8%)
2005: 1129 (+14%)
2006: 1317 (+17%)
2007: 1439 (+9%)

from bp's review of world energy...

the jump in exports started when the sharp price rises did (~2004/05)

[windoe]

29. Someone explain how these companies are not out to destroy the US.nt

[dysfunctional press]

33. most parasites know better than to kill the host.

nt

[liberalla]

37. There is no shortage! That's not why the price is so high.

This post on record exporting of gasoline is handy info to counter all those people who support drilling in Alaska, etc. Bernie Sanders said they already have leases* and they're not using them. He said they should use the ones they have before asking for more.

* it was a huge amount, but don't recall exactly. The figure that sticks in my mind is 80,000 (leases for oil drilling), but I'm not certain. I did a search and am not finding it right now.

[Terry in Austin]

66. Depends on what you mean by "shortage"

Gas lines? No, not yet.

Decline in global oil production? Yes, for a couple of years now.

Demand outpacing supply? Yes, for a couple of years now.

Check the EIA.

[McCamy Taylor]

38. Oil costs much more in Europe. Of course they want to ship it.

[Hannah Bell]

50. European exports are up too. Isn't that odd?

US, EU, fsu, asia exports up, Middle East, Mexican & S. american (Venezuela): down.

Odd, that.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf

[Truth4Justice]

40. Exporting diesel too? The truckers and snowbirds are going to love that...NOT!

[lonestarnot]

49. This fact alone should be enough to cause a revolution.

[alfredo]

51. I just sent that article far and wide.

[alfredo]

52. My letter to the editor

According to CNBC and Reuters "A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007."

Now tell me again how opening ANWR and our coastlines for offshore drilling is going to free us from dependency on foreign oil.

On edit:

I also sent this to my Representative, Ben Chandler. I also sent the link to the story.
Just sent another copy to Mitch McConnell.

[Hannah Bell]

54. You might want to check out refinery capacity utilization & profit

margins, too. p. 19, & import/export data p. 20.

BP's review of world energy: very enlightening.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_review_2008.pdf

[alfredo]

55. I'll do that in the morning. It's pushing 2 AM here.

[KharmaTrain]

58. Last Night's "Investor's Newsletter"

I should post this here...I get a kick out of this right wing shill...kinda like seeing how the greedy mind goes about its swilling.

For a while I've been getting this "Investor's Newsletter" from a high-flying Texas "Financial Counselor"...who never can toot his own horn enough and blame Democrats for every fiscal ill in the world. For many of the boooshie years, this guy was a happy clam..."advising" on getting into junk bond deals and buying into bank and tech stocks...all that have imploded over the past year. Lately, he's been catatonic about a possible President Obama and he feel that if Gramps isn't selected, everything will be socialized and we'll all have to pay reparations...or some conveluted bullshit. It's hard to get a read since each newsletter screams about how the ultimate fault of problems are the Clenis and Obama is a new Clenis. At first he was a complete Mittens man and cut Gramps to shreads on his flip-flops and lack of being a true fiscal conservative. Now he's the "great white hope".

Last night's diatribe went into oil speculation. Of course being from Texas, he did his best to play appologist for his oil company clients. He cited "peak oil" as the problem...blaming China and India and the fact we haven't drilled this continent full of holes...and most of all, leave the "speculators" alone. Then he goes onto a jag about how no one understands how the markets really work...but he sure does...and that speculators really aren't making any money and if Obama is elected the price could quickly hit $200 a barrel. Yep, he's all but convinced of that.

Then he goes into his usual pitch (for those with $500,000 to throw away, he'll gladly give you a "free" consultation), and that's about the values in "investing" in commodities...buy, buy, buy...and let him help you find the "winners".

Many times I've been tempted to email this douchebag and give it to him, but then he'd probably charge me for the "consultation". :rofl:

[Supersedeas]

65. when $$$ trump patriotism

[reprehensor]

69. Gah...

I have to quit telling myself it can't get any worse.