Bipartisan support for tinnitus research needed
It was nice to read the BDN’s recent recent article about tinnitus and the high rate of occurrence among veterans. This health issue is often overlooked, and it’s wonderful that more attention is being paid to it. In fact, despite the VA paying out over $1.1 billion to veterans in 2010 for tinnitus disability compensation, the American Tinnitus Association says that only $10 million is dedicated to research in the public and private sectors.
It’s precisely because tinnitus is the No. 1 service connected disability for veterans that I introduced the bipartisan Tinnitus Research and Treatment Act. This bill will ensure that the VA is dedicating appropriate research time and resources to tinnitus. We must remain on the cutting edge for research and treatment of the health issues facing veterans of all ages, and I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring attention to this issue.
Mike Michaud
U.S. Representative for Maine’s 2nd CD
East Millinocket
Stop handouts to farmers
Instead of citizens having to dissolve their local police force in order to save taxpayer dollars, we should be looking at ways to cut wasteful spending.
Each year, our tax dollars go to federal agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit the biggest agribusinesses, giving them handouts for growing commodity crops like corn and soy. What’s worse, those crops are often processed into junk food ingredients like high fructose corn syrup — and Maine taxpayers’ share of these junk food subsidies is $4.5 million.
Times are tough and government budgets tight — just look at the decision Damariscotta faces over whether to shutter its police station.
Those agricultural subsidies can’t just be redirected to our local police forces, but our agricultural subsidy program is definitely askew when 82 percent of Maine farmers don’t see a dime.
With the federal farm bill expiring at the end of next month, we have a real opportunity to end these wasteful subsidies. Mainers should call their legislators and urge them to vote against these handouts under the farm bill.
Nicole Karatzas
Portland
Don’t believe oil pipeline myths
The recent OpEd on oil pipelines (“ The folly of tar sands”, 8/26) is representative of the growing myths about pipeline safety and overblown dangers of crude oils derived from the Canadian oil sands.
The author suggests that it would take legislative action to stop the reversal of flow on the Portland-Montreal line, but the fact is that neither Enbridge nor Portland-Montreal Pipeline, which are not affiliated, have such plans at this time. Enbridge has even filed paperwork with the National Energy Board of Canada to explain that it has abandoned its original proposal that would have allowed oil sands crude to flow into the Portland-Montreal line.
Another concerning point is the assertion that oil sands crude is “gooey and gummy”. When extracted from the ground, bitumen has a consistency like peanut butter. But that’s not what travels through pipe. The bitumen is diluted so that it can flow and has very similar chemical properties as other familiar crudes from places like California and Mexico.
Oil sands crudes are no more corrosive than other crude oils, and crude oil in general is not particularly corrosive. The pipelines that carry them are tested and monitored to ensure safe
operation. Since the U.S. Office of Pipeline Safety began keeping detailed statistics, it has not identified a single corrosion-related pipeline release from pipelines carrying diluted bitumen.
Pipelines remain a safe and reliable mode of transportation for vital energy resources, and your readers will be much better prepared if they first separate myths from the facts.
John Quinn
Boston, Mass.
Editorial on PAC finances hits nail on the head
Your editorial, “ How to improve financial reporting of Maine PACs,” hits the nail on the head. Maine can be proud of its history of efforts to help more voters make it to the polls and to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Enabling voters to find out immediately who is seeking to sway their votes in the final days of the election campaign is another important step.
The dramatic increase in the amount of money dedicated to influencing our elections makes such action an urgent priority. Maine people from across the political spectrum can support your suggested changes to current rules governing financial reporting.
Tom Bjorkman
Blue Hill
Middle class drives jobs, not tax breaks
Mitt Romney says he wants to create more jobs by reducing regulations and by decreasing taxes on big business. Which regulations shall we get rid of? Those that provide clean air and drinking water? Food that is safe to eat? Safe air travel? Workplace safety?
His plans will not increase jobs. Big business in the United States right now has more cash on hand, two trillion dollars, than at any time since 1959. They simply are not expanding and hiring because of uncertainty over the global economic situation as well as because the weakened
American middle class cannot afford to buy manufactured products right now.
Tax breaks and reduced costs for the rich and for big business will not solve the problem of jobs. Only rebuilding the middle class will allow expansion of businesses in our country.
Stephen Blythe
Jonesboro
Staff writers and slackers
As a faithful BDN reader, I am extremely grateful to have a high-quality local paper that is still privately owned and has such a balanced and adventurous editorial page. Since I devote a good deal of my time to your publication, I would like to make a suggestion and request.
I believe it would be very helpful if articles could be printed with two contrasting typefaces so that the second font might be used to differentiate material that had previously been published, more or less verbatim, in stories dealing with the same subject. I realize that this would probably be impractical for wire service news from a wide variety of sources, but I assume that it could easily be accomplished if applied to your own original content.
Sadly, I fear that you would never actually do this because of the embarrassment resulting from frequently publishing relatively long articles with only two or three sentences of new information and everything else merely rehash, but it would be nice.
I appreciate that it may be important to fill in a reader new to a topic, but for those of us who read the paper daily you would considerably enhance the quality and efficiency of our experience. It
also might be a useful means of applying some salutary pressure on staff writers with slacker tendencies.
Lorenzo Mitchell
Blue Hill
Mike what about jobs?
Ask the Republicans, they are in control of the House of Representitives.
They’re too busy voting on abortion and Obamacare over and over.
Ask the Senate, in particular Senator Reid. He has blocked over 30 bills sent up from the House from being allowed a vote. Reid is the obstructionist. And Obama is allowing him to play that role, because Obama doesn’t want anyone saying that the Republicans are actually trying to help.
But, in November, Obama will be issued his eviction notice, and Reid will be on his way to the minority.
You have a distorted view of reality.
None of the polls indicate that Romney is going to win.
Most of them, at least the honest polls, show them about even.
Oh good lord EJP, they’re only honest if they agree with your assertions? Come on.
Once the Presidential–and Vice Presidential–candidates debate, decent Americans will see not just the hypocrisies of Mitt and Paul but also the devastation they seek for most Americans. All their speeches will not matter when they have to defend their policies and their prejudices. True, Mitt and Paul are both very smart and very articulate, but those skills go only so far.
Yeah. Obama’s articulation skills end when the prompter is turned off. And Biden is dangerous without a script. Of course, Obama and Biden have friends that will be asking the questions, and I’ll bet they get the questions up front. So, they might have a cheating chance. We’ll see.
Keep dreaming. Mitt and Ryan will lose as ever more ordinary Americans with middle of the road views learn the intended effects of their proposed policies. You and others who oppose abortion in every case–even when the life of the mother is threatened–won’t be able to have it your way. As for who is really responsible for blocking bills, I suppose that the GOP-controlled House doesn’t count in your calculus. Thankfully the majority of Americans don’t live in your galaxy.
Senator Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has personally blocked over 30 bills sent up from the House. That’s a fact that you can deny and deflect all you want. Reid is the obstructionist, and Obama is aiding him.
By the way, we all know what the effect of the Obama agenda is. But, if you want America to become just another run-of-the-mill nation, then go ahead and vote for him. You’ll be voting against America and for selfishness. Trouble is, your quest for handouts and personal gain will be short lived if Obama is re-elected. America will not be able to recover from 4 more years of partisanship and spending.
The real question is this: What will our government do when the nations that are funding our debt quit extending loans and demand us to pay up? Ever thought of that?
What a one-sided view of American politics. Your beloved right-wing Republicans have done nothing to block Pres. Obama’s agenda; it’s only the leftist Dems. in the Senate. And your saintly Pres George W. Bush did nothing either to increase the national debt in his eight glorious years in office and the billions, even trillions, spent on wars while reducing the taxes of your beloved wealthiest Americans. Thank God a majority of voting Americans see the world differently and, unlike you, can at once criticize and praise fairly America’s first non-white President. So many Republicans hate Obama for that reason alone.
One sided. Now that sounds funny coming from you. But, it made me smile.
Hypocrisy.
I guess you’re going to ignore the questions I asked in the last paragraph.
They will hire as consultants your beloved right-wing Republicans, starting with George W. Bush. Your apocalyptic views of the end of the world might derive from your religious faith, but they have nothing to do with reality or with American history. In terms, moreover, of unanswered points, you have NEVER told us what you personally have done to help babies born to women (and men) of poverty and/or victims of rape. You’ve made it painfully clear that abortion is completely wrong, but you don’t tell us any more. So typical of the right-wing in this country.
When you deflect, you deflect. The question was this:
What will our government do when the nations that are funding our debt quit extending loans and demand us to pay up? Ever thought of that?
As for what I’ve done for children; a whole lot more than the average person. But, it will cover a chapter or three in my memoirs.
You have again failed to answer my question about what you personally have done for babies and other children whose mothers if not whose fathers chose life over abortion. Your vague comments don’t cut it. If you insist that a girl who has been made pregnant by being raped MUST have the baby, whatever her age, medical condition, mental state, etc. Be specfic, not vaguely self-righteous.
I do believe I asked my question first.
And I am against all abortions because I believe that life is created by God, and He doesn’t create any life without that life having a purpose. You can spin that any way you wish, and you will. But, I’ll stand up for the innocent unborn over the right of the woman to be selfish.
Regardless, I’ll give you one more chance to answer the question I asked. Of course, you can opt out because any answer you might give, if honest, would hurt your man Obama.
You must remember that EJ loves governor Scott in Florida. He paid $600 million dollars in fines for cheating the Medicaid system and people like EJ elected him to office. You talk about a skewed point of view. I find this just f—ing incredible.
How’s the view under bunyan’s skirt?
By the way, you’re used of veiled profanity is juvenile. But, if it makes you feel all grown up, then I guess it’s your right.
What’s juvenile is your skirt comment that you had to open with.
It seems to me, you’re the selfish one. Only for the rights and ideals of yourself and not for the others. When others exercise their freedom and make their own choices that happen to differ from your own, you demonize them. I don’t know why you have this I’m great and so are everyone I agree with, but the rest are awful monsters attitude from. The things you claim have such little basis in reality. It’s really absurd.
Bunyan ignored my questions. How about you answer it.
It’s a stupid question and shows your ignorance of the situation. Also, it’s entirely hypocritical how you’re demanding answers for your silly questions when you constantly ignore the questions and requests of others. It demonstrates your hypocrisy.
So, you don’t have an answer, so you call names and insinuate. Typical.
By the way, the question wasn’t stupid. In fact, it is one of the most important questions that needs to be asked of the President. But not one of his supporters has the balls to ask it.
I didn’t call you names, quit screaming victim.
You called me stupid, ignorant, and a hypocrite. And I didn’t scream. THIS IS SCREAMING!!!!!
Now, are you going to answer the question? You’re always demanding that others answer your questions, then you insult them if they don’t. You don’t want to be a hypocrite, do you?
No, I said the question was stupid. I said you’re engaging in hypocrisy. Quit lying and trying to mischaracterize what I said.
Thank you. And don’t ever ask me for another answer. Or are you so blind that you can’t see the double standard that you obviously live by?
EJP, it’s not a double standard. You rarely ever answer anybody’s questions, so for you to call me blind and say I’m engaging in a double standard is ridiculous.
If you’re serious about that question, you have no idea how debt works. Suddenly another country is just going to demand payment? You think that’s how things work? Also, do you know which country holds the majority of our debt? I’m betting not. It’s us. We hold 6.5 trillion of our own debt. China holds a trillion. Another trillion is savings bonds. etc.
I don’t live by a double standard. Quit projecting your poor behavior onto me. I answered your ridiculous question. Don’t forget it the next time someone asks something of you.
Correction: I always answer your questions. I just don’t answer them in a manner that suits you. There’s a big difference.
How do you think we own our own debt? How is that possible? Printing money 24/7 does only one thing: it weakens the dollar on the world market. It’s a phony and fraudulent method used to excuse our out-of-control spending. But, when you’ve got a tax cheat as Treasure Secretary and a President that can’t get past his organizer ceiling, what can one expect. And all liberals live by a double standard.
Look, EJP, just because you’re ignorant of the matter, it doesn’t make the facts suddenly vanish. We own 6.5 trillion, individuals through bonds own a trillion and then the next two countries are Japan and China each with about a trillion.
http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html There. Click on “federal debt” on that page and read something outside of your fringe right wing bubble.
You can attack and attack all you want, but we all know you don’t have the facts of the matter on your side. When you use these personal attacks and accuse others of the behavior that you’re engaging in, people recognize how desperate you are. Why don’t you be open minded and stop hating things simply as a gut reaction?
So, you agree with Bernaki, that we can just print more dollars and the whole problem will go away.
I didn’t say that, but nice try at deflecting. Glad to see, once again, you, a person who screams about personal responsibility, can’t take responsibility for the fact that you’re ignorant about an issue.
You leave out the fact that those 30 bills were a joke when it came to job creation. They were all stuffed with nothing but tax breaks and other stupid sh-t that they knew damned well wouldn’t pass and even if they did most major economists said they would do nothing to create jobs.
Congratulations. You just proved that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It seems that the current Republican/Tea Party has control of the House of Representatives (Congress). If memory serves they have shot down any jobs bills proposed. It seems their main focus is to make President Obama a one termer.
Seems like a good plan to me. This President has done more damage than I thought any President could do when he came to power 3.5 years ago.
The Presidents jobs bills have been nothing more than political payoffs to his supporters. That was the history with the stimulus why would it be any different with anything else this President proposes.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly documented the success of the stimulus. It likely staved off a recession. Had it been larger, we would be recovering more briskly.
The American Jobs Act would stop the bleeding in state and local government jobs that is undercutting the growth in private sector jobs: it would fund the hiring of police officers, firefighters, and teachers, as well as fund infrastructure improvements. Stuck in the same fantasy world as Herbert Hoover, the Tea Party Republicans think austerity is the path to growth. This is like telling a starving man to go on a diet.
A brief review of history, economic theory, and current events would puncture your illusions about austerity. Sweden, in the Great Depression, had vigorous public spending and recovered more quickly than any other nation. Even Milton Friedman opined “We are all Keynesians, now.” China minimized its recession with vigorous public spending, while the austerity imposed on Greece has caused a major depression in that country.
No President could best Bush II’s record for damage done to the nation. President Obama has ended one war, is preparing to end another, has eliminated bin Laden, restored private sector job growth, re-regulated Wall Street, and expanded health care access for all.
Only in Tea Party fantasy land would the President’s accomplishments be called “damage.”
Gosh, did I say all that?
You gave us polemics and I brought you back to reality. You are welcome.
Don’t give to many facts at one time, many on here can’t handle even one fact. I am thinking
Cheesecake1955 is one of those unable to handle facts and most of the Republicans fall into that category.
If poster had stuck to “facts” there might have been something to discuss. Instead poster chose to make general political attacks. As she chose to engage in polemics and demagoguery all I can do is shrug my metaphorical shoulders.
Do you think Cheesecake rates Hoover and Bush II as two of our greatest Presidents?
You’re as inconsistent and as dramatic as your pal Krauthammer.
So how many windows and different log-on accounts do have up at the moment?
Paranoid much?
Nope… You have at least three I am aware of… inadvertently admitted to….
I’d love to hear your theories.
You’ve accused me of something, so prove it.
That is hard to prove of course until your next admission.
Show me what you have so far. You’ve accused me of something, so stop being a coward and back it up.
I only have one account, so either you’re simply mistaken or you’re comfortable with assuming the worst of those you disagree with.
Next time..
Okay, well you’re just proving the kind of person you are when you make nasty claims about others without basis. Not exactly honorable behavior.
You claimed I have three that I’ve admitted to and yet you won’t provide evidence of it. Back it up, otherwise, you’re just a liar on top of being a troll.
The next time you admit it… I’ll point it out.
You have nothing.
In 1936, when Keynes wrote his classic—The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money—he
was emphatic on this point: no country, ever, should run up any kind of
trade
deficit, much less the trade deficit on steroids we are running.
Of course, in 1936 and for years after, the United States was the
biggest creditor country in the history of the world. So Keynes never
worried about our being a debtor country—rather, he spent much of his
last days begging the United States to get other countries out of debt.
If he came back and saw the colossal external debt we run now, he would
be pushing for a serious plan to bring it down just as hard as he’d be
pushing a stimulus for full employment.
You misunderstand Keynes. You may use the term neo-Keynes if you like but what we have been doing is NOT KEYNES.
We are agreed on the folly of running up a trade deficit. I opposed NAFTA and most favored nation trade status with China for that reason. A trade deficit is completely different than a national debt and you, Keynes, and I understand that. The effect of our evisceration of our manufacturing capacity has been to further increase our national debt, as China is willing to buy our T-notes at cheap interest rate with all the money it has acquired.
Were we borrowing that money to build roads and bridges, it would have a much more direct stimulative effect. Borrowing it to give tax cuts to the wealthy so that they can stash the money overseas has no stimulative effect. Borrowing it for tax cuts for the working class so that they can buy cheap Chinese imports from Walmart has only a modest stimulative effect.
Mr. Blythe, you have hit the nail on the head. Restoring the middle class would begin with raising the minimum wage. Increased purchasing power would ripple through our society and increase demand, restoring our economic growth.
The effect of raising the minimum wage on the middle class will have the opposite effect of what you seek. All it would do is raise costs on the goods and services the middle class pay for in everything from retail clothing to family stops at Burger King, not to mentioned increased cost on food at the checkout line. The increased “purchasing power” would disappear faster than it appeared.
A better tactic might be to find ways to push the value of personal equity up, home prices for example. People would feel more flush, willing to spend more, creating middle class jobs. It would also help if we could find a way to reduce energy costs which have essentially doubled in the past four years. Lower energy costs would give people more disposable income and small business which are only marginally profitable could have the confidence to expand as their operating costs would be reduced.
As for Mr Blythes comments on regulation… he seems not to realize that all regulation that stifle growth are environmental. He has a narrow view of what regulations do.
History refutes you. We had a much higher minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, throughout the 50s and 60s and enjoyed record growth. People could afford to buy the products they helped make. A rise in the minimum wage helps raise the wages for all workers.
Very little of the productivity gains over the last 30 years has gone to wage increases; instead, the gains have gone to corporate profits, which are at much higher levels than 30 years ago.
Check your numbers on energy costs. Gas prices are roughly the same and the costs of natural gas is lower.
Encouraging home equity loans creates a false sense of wealth. If we paid workers more, they wouldn’t have to borrow against their homes and would actually see their wealth, and the nation’s wealth increase.
Exactly.
Cheerleader with no opinion.
LOL, you’re getting desperate. Go cool down.
A little projection there eh?
“I’m rubber and you’re glue” Good one, Cheesecake!
Yep.
The cost of gas has doubled since just before the economic collapse when it was closer to $2 per gallon. It is over $4 today, same for heating oil. It has fluctuated near $4 a couple times in the last few years. The prices are consistently higher than they were during the “good times”. I understand cheaper natural gas is a larger percentage of our mix now but I can’t help but think energy costs play a role in the lack of sustained recovery. The cost in undeniably higher that five years ago. I can see that in my monthly financial statements.
While I agree some of the productivity gains have gone to corporate profits you cannot deny that some of that gain went to lower costs of goods and services. Inflation (outside of food & energy) has been lower than the historical norm consistently now for a couple decades.
People borrow when they feel flush not when they don’t. They also spend then also. Home value is a big part of feeling that way. The economy suffers because we have a housing glut. That needs to be dealt with before a sustained recovery can happen in my opinion.
I think you take the wrong lesson from the higher (relatively) minimum wage.
The minimum wage of the fifties and sixties was a byproduct of a strong vibrant economy not a cause of it.
You are not Paul Ryan and you don’t get to make things up. The collapse in ’08 began with Lehman’s 9/15/08 bankruptcy filing. Per the Dept. of Energy, gas prices for July, August, and September of ’08 were $4.06, $3.78, and $3.70, respectively. Gas prices this week are $3.91. This is a “doubling” only if you engage in the Romney/Ryan arithmetic that President Clinton so effectively lampooned.
My point was a general one about what would help in a recovery. Whenever high gas prices started they are hindrance to the economic recovery along with low housing prices. I think you made an assumption that mine was a cloaked attack on Obama, it wasn’t.
BTW I passed several stations this morning where gas was in the $4.05 range.
Your point was quite specific: gas prices had “doubled since just before the economic collapse.” It was utterly wrong. By the way, the economic collapse did drive gas prices down.
We suffer from excess supply and inadequate demand, in the housing market and in the manufacturing and construction sectors as a whole. Were Congress to allow a cram down of mortgage principal and boost demand with such things as the American Jobs Act, which it has ignored for a year, we would see more Keynesian-inspired growth.
“The prices are consistently higher than they were during the “good
times”. I understand cheaper natural gas is a larger percentage of our
mix now but I can’t help but think energy costs play a role in the lack
of sustained recovery. The cost in undeniably higher that five years
ago. I can see that in my monthly financial statements”
from my post above.
Your readers wish candor. Try typing “I was mistaken about the doubling of gas prices.” We know you can do it!!
I think good first steps in increasing personal equity are by not having individuals be fleeced by their banks and health insurance providers. Being scammed out of money without even having a service provided in return. But yeah, requiring debit card holders to opt into overdraft programs (with their ridiculous fees) — that realllllllly stifles growth, lol. What a joke.
I don’t know the extent that personal equity would be affected, but I agree wholeheartedly. Both sides permit banks to do this (tho my Rs are more publically enthusiastic), and I still hold out hope that the federal financial consumer protection agency gets a chance and gets some real teeth.
I bank locally since leaving BoA, and I’ll never look back.
People should spend their money, that’s great for the economy, but they ought to be provided with something in return. Obviously private companies seek to increase their profit margins, but without regulations, we get to a point where their profit increasing practices can be very harmful.
I’m just sick of the ridiculous meme that consumer protections and/or regulations somehow are the problem in the equation. With the overdraft example, I’m ecstatic that regulations like that have been put into a place. I want to have an honest discussion, not one where people are pushing things with veiled reasoning.
I love how the banks will take your presented overdrafts and deliberately pay the highest one (rather than in order of submission), so that every subsequent payment is also an overdraft. They still do this, but at least they were forced to admit they did it and disclose it now. And the cheekiest part is when asked why they did this, they would, with a completely straight face, say their customers want it that way. If I found a way to do them like that, they would be on The Hill the next day looking for protection from *me*.
If you use a FDIC bank all money is used the same way. The banks works from a Federal Reserve Account not from any money held locally. If you believe anything else you have fell for a marketing ploy.
Of course. I’m talking fees and service.
ok
Caveat Emptor.
Poor baby.
No more scamming profits and unearned dollars — poor entitled baby.
Requiring hand holding and hugs rather than reading the information in front of you is the definition not only of “entitled” but “dependent”.
You’re feigning ignorance. Some of the big banks have been found guilty of deceptive acts and practices and you’re acting like that’s the fault of consumers. You pretend that consumers should just know better. It’s just a stupid line of logic and you apply it universally, but without the “hand holding and hugs” what would you do? Would you personally test your foods for harmful chemicals? Would you self monitor the quality and amount of fuel coming out of the pump at the gas station?
So yeah, I do think you have this sense of entitlement. You know it’s not a mere matter of “reading the information in front of you” (what a stupid thing for you to imply) and yet you maintain that it is fact in order to denigrate those with legitimate complaints.
Re Your first paragraph…. You are not feigning.
Actually he’s feigning intelligence.
I am a freedom-to-contract kinda guy, but it really is a little more than that. The financial institutions kick because it affects their profits, not their access to larger markets or more customers. One of the things I actually expect my smaller government to do is to force a vendor to disclose the things which are bad about their product and might make me change my mind about buying it…the extent of that is a political question. To me, the chance to make an informed decision is the essence of a free market.
I have no problem with disclosure laws… I am not certain what you mean though by forcing a vendor to disclose what might be “bad about a product”. What might be considered bad to you might be beyond mentioning to me.
As I said…a political question.
John Quinn–may I suggest you talk with the people in the Kalamazoo, Mi. area and see how they feel about the oil sands going “all most thru” the pipeline. According to the NTSB the reason for the leak “was the result of multiple small corrosion-fatigue cracks that over time grew in size and linked together, creating a gaping breach in the pipe measuring over 80 inches long.” I am thinking it was not moisture from the outside causing corrosion.
Tom Bjorkman –good letter, any money over a few thousand dollars should be reported within 24 hours.
Stephen Blythe –great letter, you hit the nail on the head, 100% right
Mike Michaud, Tom Bjorkman, Stephen Blythe: good letters.
John Quinn: what is the diluent to allow piplelining of the heavy tar sands crude and what is it’s origin? Also, I know that much of the corrosion occurs at the source in processing a gritty and abrasive bitumen. However, corrosion down line may be the result of natural contaminants. what is the sulfur content of the crude? If to high this may make it unusable in Easstern refineries which are designed for processing sweeter crudes from the Middle East. A decrease in sweet crude and the excessive cost to upgrade to handle sour crudes is the reason that many Eastern refineries are closing.
I believe that the Irving Refinery in Saint John is equiped to refine higher sulphur crude.
However, the WSJ wrote earlier this year that US mid-Atlantic refineries were getting and processing cheaper, less sweet crudes, driving up the cost of fuels in that areaand the Northeast. The cost of retrofitting them to process heavy crudes, if they could get them, was also high prompting the closing or bargain basement sale.
Stephen Blythe, it’s a wonder that Romney/Ryan haven’t used this as a campaign slogan or ploy. Telling voters that if they are elected, they will use their contacts in the corporate world to free up their hiring practices to put people back to work.
Dream on. Could we expect that kind of payback?
The check is in the mail;)
With anticipation … :)
From my reading Mr Blythe is only half correct. $1 trillion of those dollars are locked overseas by the tax system.
In terms of regulation not all of those are environmental as you might suppose. Some of them are new restrictions on what business can do with their own money. In the small business arena it is now impossible for a business owner to extract money (loans) from one business line to invest in other business lines due to Dodd-Frank regulations. (According to my banker in a meeting 3 weeks ago.) I can only imagine the restrictions placed on banks and therefore business in the large Cap arena. It can’t be any simpler.
Thank you John Quinn for your letter. The misinformation regarding this source of energy is just part of a zealous campaign to attack any carbon-based source as “dirty” by the idealogues who are trying to dismantle the power that drives our economy and our lifestyle. I would love to see all those people mouthing the lies and misrepresentations of the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club, etc. take themselves off these energy resources and live on wind, solar, and ethanol for a while (without subsidies!). They would triple their expenses and we would only hear from them when the wind blew just right or it was bright and sunny.
I know you must have an answer as to where the mercury. that is in our fish all through Maine, comes from. Should’t we try to do something to stop that, or the garbage that is in our air? Or do we just go on ignoring the pollution?
John Quinn, you didn’t convince me. Tar sands are no good.
Stephen Blythe – Hear, hear!!! Well said.!!!!