Sign the Petition: DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW - - siouxcityranch's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Jun 15, 2008 at 10:06 AM : How will authorizing...

How will authorizing exploration of domestic fields (which by all rights would take 7-10 years to start production) "immediately lower" gas prices sioux?

Jun 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM : Gas prices aren't...

Gas prices aren't high enough yet. How do I know this? Well, I commute to LA 4 days a week. At 4:30 am on 99, I see countless bozos blasting past me at 85 or 90 MPH in their pickup trucks (and big rigs). When those clowns finally realize that faster speed means worse MPG, and they finally slow down, then gas prices will be high enough. I guess it will take something around $9.00 a gallon. The fastest way to lower the price is to decrease demand. If we don't buy it, they can't sell it. The price drops. Basic economics. Less consumption will have the fastest effect on price. Slow down to the speed limit and learn how to drive for the best possible MPG. I have a Chevy Avalanche, and in town I can get 18 MPG. I commute in a Prius, and I get 51 MPH. A hybrid Avalance would be nice. Soon, the bonehead US automakers will finally step up and build more hybrid trucks and SUV's, SO when they do, buy them!

As for drilling, that is fine, but we need to move on to hydrogen fuel cells so we can tell OPEC to stuff their oil up their butts!

Jun 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM : I've already...

I've already started slowing down, although my usual top was 70. I get 38 mpg or so on my out-of-town trips now.

I'm afraid the boneheads waited too long. Even a year ago folks could have ponied up for hybrids. Now they'll have to wait until after the recession.

Jun 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM : There are people who...

There are people who aren't able to "pony" for hybrids. They are stuck with what they can afford. Sheesh, not everything is a political statement.

Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM : dgrealish:...

dgrealish: "There are people who aren't able to "pony" for hybrids. They are stuck with what they can afford. Sheesh, not everything is a political statement."

As long as people view hybrids as "political statements", we'll continue to be depedent on foreign oil.

Many of us know it'll take 20 years to change over the vehicle base to hybrids. We're at least 7 years behind schedule. I'm sure that'll be it, though. Even Detroit is finally waking up and smelling the burning oil. They've given up their arguments against hybrids and trying to play catch-up. But because of their short-sighted business sense (and Washington's unwillingness to require change), they have an uphill battle. At least the "free market" is finally speaking loud and clear.

Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM : Right Mattloch, 7...

Right Mattloch, 7 years behind. After all Clinton did so much to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc. (viz ANWR veto, etc.)

You try to make everything political to further your agenda, and in doing so you only bolster the arguments of your opponents.

Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM : H8cloz -- do you drive...

H8cloz -- do you drive around nekkid?

I bet that could reduce the demand for gasoline!

Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM : So, mattloch, Do you...

So, mattloch,

Do you drive a Hybrid vehicle?

Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM : We all missed the boat...

We all missed the boat when Carter was defeated. If we'd listened to what he was saying, we'd be laughing at the silly Saudis and Iranians now.

But then, Carter was a *MUCH* better and more prescient President than the clod who succeeded him.

I don't drive a hybrid, tonyh, but my five-year-old car was selected specifically for gas economy. Manual transmission and cruise control and small engine and all.

Jun 15, 2008 at 01:06 PM : I didn't comment...

I didn't comment that driving a hybrid was a political statement. My comment was than not driving a hyprid was not a political statement. Don't twist my words. Many people purchase the used vehicle that is within their price range. I don't have to tell you this. You already know it. One does what fits in one's budget. I've stated before, my car doesn't start unless I have at least three errands to run. That's my part.

Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06 PM : Chico: "Right...

Chico: "Right Mattloch, 7 years behind. After all Clinton did so much to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc. (viz ANWR veto, etc.)

You try to make everything political to further your agenda, and in doing so you only bolster the arguments of your opponents."

Clinton at least tried to have the CAFE standards raised. But that pesky Republican majority in Congress wouldn't go for it. Besides, ANWR would only reduce our consumption by a small precent (assuming it would all go here, as opposed to the world market which is what the Republican Congress would have wanted).

Tonyh: "So, mattloch, Do you drive a Hybrid vehicle?"

Yes I do, Tony. A 2001 Toyota Prius. 40+mpg. I also live two miles from where I work.

dgrealish: "I didn't comment that driving a hybrid was a political statement. My comment was than not driving a hyprid was not a political statement. Don't twist my words. Many people purchase the used vehicle that is within their price range. I don't have to tell you this. You already know it. One does what fits in one's budget. "

And what's the resale market for hybrids like right now? My point is that if CAFE standards were raised years ago, there would be plenty of more efficient (hybrid) used cars in the vehicle pool from which to choose. Hybrid technology would be further along. Second-generation hybrids with solid-state capacitor acceleration would be standard. Third generation cars would be on the drawing boards.

Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06 PM : Yes ChicoEsquela, I...

Yes ChicoEsquela, I would in fact save gas by driving naked. Less air conditioning saves gas! Unfortunately, a Prius is a bad vehicle for that. Too much visibility. The perfect vehicle to drive naked is a Hummer, cause of its tiny rectangular tinted windows. Once they hybridize that baby, I'll get one!!!

As for the Prius, yes it gets great mileage, but as soon as Chevy comes out with the "Volt", I'm dumping the Prius. It is a pain to drive on a long commute like mine. It blows all over the road, it has lousy steering "feel", it has a noisy and rough ride and, worst of all, no Onstar. I would much rather be driving an H2 or H3 (for many reasons, including the one stated above) but the gas mileage for an 800 mile a week commute would kill me. Hence the Prius.

I truly believe that we will see a huge breakthrough in hydrogen fuel cell and battery technology within the next 10 years that will completely change the industry. It's all about the batteries at this point. Until then, hybridization and plug-ins are the only way to go.

Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06 PM : Sell me your...

Sell me your Prius! Uh, you did sit on a towel, right, H8cloz?

Jun 15, 2008 at 03:06 PM : They are called...

They are called exchanges Mattloch. If I have production in CA and you in GA, why would we transport specific bbls across the country? Why not exchange and save transportation and other costs? Its the same as regards the world spot market.

Your kind of simplistic thinking is one of the problems in this discussion of energy -- a bunch of seeming know it alls who in point of fact really know very little...................

Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM : The petition is all...

The petition is all good and fine, but do you really think you'll change Bush's mind about drilling off the coast of Florida?

Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM : Chevy had the...

Chevy had the "Volt" years ago and put them in the shreaders... GM totally screwed you over and you didn`t even have a clue...They are on thier way to collaspe and they deserve it...

If $5-a-gallon gasoline doesn't make you hate the big oil companies, the shocking revelations in Chris Paine's thought-provoking documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? will.
- V. A. Musetto, New York Post

http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM : Mexico's Cheap...

Mexico's Cheap Gas Draws American Drivers

SAN DIEGO — If there's pain at the pump in the U.S., Mexico may just have a remedy. A gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in San Diego retails for an average price of $4.61 a gallon. A few miles south, in Tijuana, it's about $2.54 _ even less if you pay in pesos.

More and more people appear to be taking advantage of the lower price.

"I used to buy exclusively in the U.S. before gas started really going up," said Patrick Garcia, a drama teacher at an elementary school in San Diego who lives in Tijuana. "Since then, I've been buying all my gas in Tijuana."

The lower prices mean a U.S. motorist could save almost $54 filling up a two-year-old Ford F150 pickup with a 26-gallon fuel tank in Mexico.

The differential in diesel is even greater, selling at $5.04 a gallon in San Diego County and $2.20 in Tijuana.

Paul Covarrubias, 26, who lives in Chula Vista and works in construction in San Diego, crosses the border each week just to refuel his dual-cab Ford F-250 pickup.

"I fill it up with diesel in Tijuana for $60," he said. "It would be almost twice that in San Diego."

Gas is cheaper in Mexico because of a government subsidy intended to keep inflationary forces in check

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/mexicos-cheap-gas-draws-d_n_107189.html

Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM : Things are surely...

Things are surely going to Hell in a Handbasket (if you listen to the Libs) --

(Wonder why that is........Hmmmmmmmm................)

“The Greatest Story Never Told”:
Today’s Economy in Perspective

THERE IS a debate going on today over whether our economy is in recession. Polls show sagging public confidence. But some perspective is sorely needed. The fact of the matter is that we in the United States, and to a lesser degree the entire world, have just lived through—and continue to live in—the greatest period of prosperity in human history. Over the last 25 years, more wealth has been created, more people have been lifted out of poverty, standards of living have been elevated more dramatically, and the quality and length of life have improved, more than ever before in recorded history. Unfortunately, as Larry Kudlow says, this is “the greatest story never told.” We need to start telling the story, and also to think about its causes.

First, let us focus on the United States (and I say this with full knowledge that the State of Michigan is a unique exception among the 50 states to America’s extraordinary recent prosperity; but the causes of Michigan’s peculiar problems are a topic for another day): Average economic growth in the U.S. has not only been positive for almost the entire last quarter century, but for much of this period the rate of growth has accelerated. Our nation’s total economic output in 1982 was $5.1 trillion; last year it was $11.3 trillion (in real 2000 dollars). Per capita economic output in 1982 was $22,400; last year it was $37,807 (in real 2000 dollars). The average unemployment rate in the 1970s was nearly seven percent; it has been declining, on average, every decade since, and has remained below five percent since 2003. The service sector of our economy has been on fire, growing from $1 trillion in 1982 to $5.5 trillion in 2006. And do you know how far back one has to go to find the year when America’s total manufacturing output peaked? All the way back to 2007! Yes, U.S. factories produced more last year than in any previous year in our history. That’s the “hollowing out”—as its critics like to say—of America’s economy.

This expanding economy has, of course, resulted in huge gains in wealth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average began the 1980s at 825; today, despite its recent declines, it remains above 12,000, a 1,400 percent increase. And with the democratization of the capital markets that has occurred through savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s and investment vehicles like mutual funds, the average family’s wealth has grown dramatically, too. In 1983, 19 percent of American households owned stocks; in 2005, 50 percent were investors. In 1989, the median family net worth was $69,000; in 2004, it was $93,000.

These gains in income and wealth have resulted directly in a better standard of living for virtually every segment of American society—including the poor. Among families living below the official poverty line in the early 1970s, less than 40 percent had a car, almost none had color televisions, and air conditioning was virtually unheard of; in 2004, 46 percent owned their own homes, almost 75 percent owned a car (indeed, 30 percent owned two or more cars), 97 percent had color TVs, and 67 percent had air conditioning. The poor in the U.S. have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person, as compared with 430 in Sweden and 92 in Mexico.

Similarly, technology has become accessible to all sectors of society. There were 9.8 million cable TV subscribers in 1975, and 65 million in 2006; 2.1 million personal computers in 1985, and 243 million in 2007; 340 cell phone subscribers in 1985, and 243 million in 2007.

Health indicators track similarly. Infant mortality dropped from 20 deaths per 1,000 people in 1970 to seven deaths per 1,000 people in 2002. In 1980, American life expectancy was less than 74 years. Today it is 78.

Nor is America totally unique in this regard. While we have led the world in most measures of prosperity and growth, other countries have been enjoying the broadest expansion of wealth in history as well. A recent issue of The Economist documents the tremendous worldwide improvement in both the social conditions in poor countries and the alleviation of poverty: Between 1999 and 2004, some 135 million people emerged from destitution, and there are now twice as many countries with fast-growing economies as there were in 1980.

Keys to Prosperity

This long period of sustained economic growth and the huge quality-of-life improvements it made possible didn’t happen by accident. They were a result of a major expansion in economic freedom, initially in the U.S., then increasingly around the world. This expansion took many forms, but three of the most important were a dramatic reduction in marginal tax rates, a series of major deregulations, and a broad expansion of trade.

After decades of top marginal tax rates in percentiles from the 70s into the 90s, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The top marginal rate was reduced from 70 to 50 percent, and by the time Reagan left office, it was down to 28 percent. During Reagan’s two terms, the top corporate tax rate was reduced from 34 to 28 percent, individual tax brackets were indexed for inflation, and—although there were some tax increases—the devastatingly high top marginal tax rates that preceded Reagan were gone. Nor have they come back—at least not yet.

In subsequent years, President Bush the elder and President Clinton raised some taxes too much, but lowered others; and it didn’t appear smart to anyone that we should return to the levels that had prevailed prior to Reagan. The current President Bush has lowered taxes dramatically—not so well in 2001, but then very effectively in 2003. The effect was to lower marginal tax rates, phase out the death tax, offer marriage penalty relief, and lower taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Major deregulation was another part of the expansion of economic freedom that has enabled 25 years of strong growth. Interestingly enough, this deregulation began when President Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, lifting price and route controls that had forced higher prices and fewer choices on consumers. Without these controls, airlines could offer deals to fill otherwise half-empty planes and choose more efficient routes. The airline industry has obviously struggled for many reasons in subsequent years, but consumers have been the big winners in terms of increased safety, more choices, and lower prices. Deregulation is responsible for ten to 18 percent lower fares, saving travelers $5-$10 billion a year.

Following this, in 1980, Carter signed the Motor Carrier Act, deregulating an industry that had been closely controlled by the government since 1935. This put a stop to regulations dictating what products truckers could transport and what routes they could travel. The kind of inefficiency that resulted from these regulations can best be understood by the following example: A motor carrier with authority to travel from Cleveland to Buffalo that purchased another carrier’s right to go from Buffalo to Pittsburgh was required to ship goods from Cleveland to Pittsburgh via Buffalo, adding an unnecessary and wasteful 272 miles to the trip. As a result of easing these regulations, prices for truckload-size shipments fell 25 percent by 1982, and efficiency gains and cost savings helped to make possible the “just-in-time” inventory system that has transformed retailing, lowered consumer costs, and, arguably, diminished the economy’s susceptibility to recessions.

President Reagan accelerated the trend toward less regulation, easing or eliminating price controls on oil and natural gas, cable television, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. In addition, banks were allowed to invest in a broader set of assets, and the scope of antitrust laws was reduced.

More recently, economic freedom has expanded in the form of freer international trade. In 1993, NAFTA eliminated a majority of tariffs on products traded among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and phased out others. In 2004, CAFTA eliminated tariffs immediately on more than 80 percent of U.S exports of consumer and industrial goods to Central America and phased out the rest over ten years. Since 1985, we’ve had bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with 16 countries. International trade is freer today than it has been at any time in the last 100 years.

Why Turn Back?
This “greatest story never told” is indeed a tremendous story. It’s the story of the fastest-growing period of prosperity—and the most dramatic mass elevation from poverty—in the history of the world. And it’s all been possible because—bit by bit, in fits and starts, with advances and retreats—the U.S. and other countries have been moving toward greater economic freedom.

In light of this story—which, to repeat, is ongoing, so that you don’t have to go back to medieval or classical times to find the evidence—it is utterly perplexing that so much of the election year rhetoric of late is aimed at reversing our economic course. For instance, it’s hard to find a domestic policy that can be proven to be as successful as the Bush tax cuts—even by presumably Democratic standards. It’s simply a matter of fact that these tax cuts shifted the tax burden substantially to higher income earners and took millions of lower income workers off the tax rolls altogether. The economy took off and ran for at least five years after implementation, and the federal deficit shrank dramatically after the tax cuts were enacted. Yet calls to reverse these tax cuts abound.

For the Democratic Party, of course, there are other reasons for rolling back economic freedom. One is the powerful special interest groups within its coalition—organized labor in particular—which rely on government for special treatment and benefits they could never obtain in free and fair market-based negotiations. Unfortunately, the resulting higher costs and inefficiencies can devastate industries and regions—Michigan being a prime example.

But if we can expect Democrats to resist economic freedom, how do we explain the timidity on the Republican side to defend the economic ideas that have fueled recent advances in prosperity? The answer is that most politicians are ultimately motivated by their perceptions of public opinion. And despite the evidence, the public doesn’t seem to realize the period of unprecedented progress we are in.

As a side note, the increasing lack of opposition among the American people to higher income taxes should not be surprising when an increasingly progressive tax code means ever fewer Americans are paying any taxes at all: In 2005, the top one percent of earners in the U.S. paid 39 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of earners paid just three percent. Over time, if half of the population believes that it is entitled to have someone else pay for government, we should not be surprised if public support for economic freedom continues to erode.

As one who has done a lot of campaigning over the years, I’ll admit, it can be hard to explain to some audiences why they should have to buy their own health insurance when the other side is offering to have the government give it to them for free. But that doesn’t absolve politicians of the moral obligation to present the principled and true argument..

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

© 2007-08 Hillsdale College. All Rights Reserved.

Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is hereby granted, provided
the following credit line is used:
“Reprinted by permission from

Imprimis,
a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Subscription free upon request.

Jun 16, 2008 at 07:06 AM : Chico: "They are...

Chico: "They are called exchanges Mattloch. If I have production in CA and you in GA, why would we transport specific bbls across the country? Why not exchange and save transportation and other costs? Its the same as regards the world spot market."

And what about different types of oil? I guess refineries can just take any old type of oil from anywhere in the world and refine it, even mix different types with no problems, right Chico? And the world market doesn't value different types of oil differently, does it? Alaska heavy, West Texas Intermediate, Brent Blend, it's all the same, right? Who's simplistic now?

Jun 16, 2008 at 08:06 AM : Economy faces that...

Economy faces that '70s feeling again; Fed has a big challenge

WASHINGTON -- Not since the 1970s has the U.S. economy faced such an ugly combination of a persistent energy shock, a looming recession threat and menacing inflation that stays stubbornly high -- even in the face of a screeching slowdown in growth.

This combination has the Federal Reserve, charged by law with both sustaining growth and curbing inflation, in a bind. It must balance the needs of protecting the economy from a downturn while protecting it against an upward spiral of prices — and doing either one can make the other far more difficult.

In addition, this dilemma comes amid the worst housing slump in modern times, as well as an unprecedented crisis in credit markets whose positive outcome is far from certain. Adding to the troubles are the dive of the U.S. dollar against other currencies and rising global inflation that partly mutes whatever action the Fed takes.

"This thing has the potential to really unwind to create huge negative effects," said Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor from 1980 to 1985, one of the U.S. economy's most turbulent periods. "The Fed is walking a tightrope right now, that's for sure."

Laurence Meyer, a Fed governor from 1996 to 2002, sees some parallels between today and the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the oil-dependent U.S. economy saw double-digit inflation largely because of an unexpected energy shock. Growth fell while inflation rose, creating stagflation -- a stagnant economy and high inflation.

Today's problems, he said, reflect "the first really persistent (oil) shock we've had since the 1970s, and the inflation expectations are worse than we have had over the past decade. So we're kind of in a middle area."

Neither Meyer nor most other prominent economists expect a return to double-digit inflation. Policymakers learned from the Fed chairman back then, Paul Volcker. He pushed interest rates up so high that they crushed double-digit inflation. But it came at a huge price — the job-killing 1981-82 recession, worst since the Great Depression. To kill inflation he first had to squash growth.

But once the inflation dragon was slain, the '80s economy boomed, and Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election in 1984 on the slogan that it was "morning in America."

Today there's no chance that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will ignore inflation; the question is how long will its rise will be tolerated before he acts to tame it.

Pressure is growing on him to act soon.

"We need to take steps to ensure that inflation does not get out of control. We need to act pre-emptively," Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, told CNBC television on Thursday.

He said that the Fed should raise interest rates soon to quell inflation. But that could tip the economy into recession if it's not already there, or make it worse if it is.

Yet failing to raise interest rates could make things even worse over time. It could permit an inflationary spiral to ignite as consumers and businesses demand higher wages and prices to compensate for the inflation they're already feeling.

That would fuel, in turn, even-higher inflation, which in turn would require even higher interest rates and a deeper recession, as happened in 1981-82.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41159.html

Jun 16, 2008 at 08:06 AM : Oh Jeeezus Christ...

Oh Jeeezus Christ Mattloch -- get real -- I was reacting to your over simplistic remonstrations the likes of which we see from Fran Florez, etc. about "keeping our oil here", etc....

Now YOU are going to tell ME about WTI, Ras Tanura, 16 degree Kern River high sulphur crude vs. Yowlumne 32 degree light sweet?

Get real Jack.

If you want to get into a discussion of refinable hydrocarbons and how it all "works" you might want to stay within your own little world of fellow travelers whose expertise and experience mirrors your own.

Again, with Buffalo Springfield music in the background just for you -- Paranoia Runs Deep -- It remains people like you who worry about Alaska Crude going to Japan while we trade (exchange) bbls of crude from Japanese owned production in CA.

You remind me of those people........ were your knowledge of the differences in refineable hydrocarbons were Prince Albert, you wouldn't have enough to half fill that pipe of yours. So wail away about "any old type of oil" but those of us that know the business also know that we actually DID in fact mix different types of crude, even around here to get line flow going....... Thats why I mentioned Yowlumne (blast from the past) and heavier crudes from Kern River or some of the other fields (Coles Levee, etc.) to get flow in some of our crude lines to Marlex and other refineries outside Kern County......

As I have said before, you can spend your life Googling away but there is no substitute for actual hands on experience........ Something you will never have......

Jun 16, 2008 at 08:06 AM : OK, here is what I...

OK, here is what I want to know. I have read that only 30% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia, yet we still pay $140 a barrel for oil. Also that much of our oil comes here from our own country -- California, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, etc.

Now, why are we still paying such a huge price for oil if it mostly comes from US and other countries besides OPEC. Maybe my information source is wrong. Read it in this newspaper about rising gas prices and where the oil comes from.

Anybody have any answers to my question????????

Jun 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM : Here are the figures...

Here are the figures from the Department of Energy for the top six oil importers to the U.S. November, 2007, a typical month.

CANADA 1,919
SAUDI ARABIA 1,530
MEXICO 1,484
VENEZUELA 1,227
NIGERIA 1,215
IRAQ 508
ANGOLA 408

(in thousands of barrels PER DAY)

We are now importing over 60% of our daily needs for crude.

The reasons why oil is what it is today are:

1) It is a world market and the spot market is driven by world demand of which India and China have become really big users just in the last few years

2) Speculators fuel spikes in prices far beyond what they normally would be as they magnify any fears, etc. that the market may have for future deliveries (this is the opposite of what futures markets were set up to do)

3) Oil is pretty much a fungible product -- gasoline is not. Certainly there are gravity gradations and sulfur content, etc. that are adjusted for but gasoline in CA is formulated for specific areas (Boutique fuels) and this creates supply anomalies which drives the price of gasoline up even higher in CA

Jun 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM : Hey thank you...

Hey thank you Chico. Well now I get a better picture of the whole situation. WOW, Canada, who would have ever thought Canada would be a bigger producer of oil than Saudi Arabia. That is very interesting.

By the way i was just down in Mexico about 1 month ago and noticed how low gas is down there. I think it was $2.65 a gallon for unleaded. Now how can they do that??? But then again our tour guide said that hardly anyone down there owns a vehicle as it costs too much and people are too poor to own cars , trucks, etc. On another blog there is information about residents in San Diego going to Mexico to fill up on gas there. Well why not instead of paying $4.60 a gallon in USA. Very interesting.

Jun 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM : There are...

There are forces at work in the US. that WANT prices to be high -- the higher the better -- and they ain't the oil cos.......

People like the Dem hierarchy denigrate the 1 mil bbls per day ANWR would have brought on, then cheer Saudi for the 200,000 bbls per day they are going to increase production by. LOL!