Surprise, surprise -- congress looks to OK more Big Oil handouts. Bend over, America.

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050928/...gy_congress_dc

You know what the funny part of this bill is? From the article:

"In an important concession to the oil industry, Barton's bill would give the Energy Department the final say to approve new refinery permits and trump any local and state objections."

I thought Republicans didn't like anything that gives more power to the feds at the cost of local jurisdiction?


What the hell are these dumbasses thinking? Is this government completely out of touch with the best interests of our country, or is it just me? The last time I checked, handouts to the ExxonMobil's of the country do NOTHING to help the people at large, nor ease our immediate problem. Seriously! What will more refineries do for us in the short term -- NOTHING! What the hell will disrupting wildlife preserves and whoring out important National Park land for building on accomplish? NOTHING! Unless, of course, we Americans LIKE acid rain, increased pollution, and selling out our important natural assets. So that dink Bush and his cronies think some stupid oil rig in the Alaskan Preserve will somehow HELP US OUT!? Yeah, right. Providing they can build there, and maintain the facility, oh yeah, and actually FIND any accessible oil -- all of this, and the whole thing will STILL take about 15 years from the point of conception to actually begin effectively producing oil.

Here's another one from the article:

"The House panel rejected, 27-22, a Democratic plan that would have punished companies that charge an "excessive" price for gasoline. It also would have established a network of U.S. refineries that could be switched on during shortages."

Yeah, because no one likes the thought of punishing a big corporation -- who's currently making record profits hand over fist -- for gouging the lowly consumer. And what good would a network of refineries geared specifically toward emergency production do? I mean, when there ISN'T an emergency, it's only costing Big Oil -- and heavens forbid we should tamper with their exponential growth. Don't forget, they keep the campaign donations flowing for politicians and their own pursuits

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since at this point I wouldn't put anything past this sad excuse for a government we currently have. Say, how's that Iraq war going? There's a lot of oil out there... oops, sorry -- too taboo.

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050927/...gy_gasoline_dc

Just figured I'd add this as well. Didn't you wonder why prices jumped up so quickly in the wake of Katrina? I remember some gas stations near me not even bothering to adjust the price on the street sign because it was rising so often. And I'm SURE they weren't refilling their supply tanks THAT many times a day They were upping prices on gas already at its destination! Nope, the oil companies saw opportunity, and they jumped all over it. But we don't want to attempt to curtail THEIR activities any... why, that just wouldn't be very free-market of us. Give me a break.

[YogsVR4]

Let me interject a few things.

#1 HOORAY for profits!! I don't know about you, but my retirement accounts are invested in companies and unless they turn a profit, I won't make any money. Now, if you like investing in companies that turn no profit or break even and make no money - I've got a bridge to sell you.

#2 Price controls don't work! Never have and never will. Every time price (as well as wage) controls are put in place, it either drives people out of business or, in the case of wages, drives up the cost of doing business.

#3 Nobody is going to find a replacement for oil for decades and to say we shouldn't drill in ANWAR because it won't be enough to alleviate our dependence is foolhardy. Every new oilrig is a little less we have to bring in from overseas. It does matter and we should be getting our own oil while letting the market develop cost effective alternatives.

#4 The requirements to build refineries is a jumbled pile of red tape. I see nothing in that bill that will help make more or will streamline the process. What a waste of time.

#5 Punish people for charging to much? Another waste of time. Gas is a commodity. If someone is willing to pay up the ass for it, then its their own damn fault for being dependant on it. People overpay for things all the time. Buyer beware seems to be lost on to many people. The only thing the government should be doing is making sure there is no collusion happening with the price setting. If that happens, the free market will dictate prices based on supply and demand. Keep the supply the same (which it is because of the refinery bottleneck) while the demand continues to rise and you can tell where prices will go.

Aside from that, the federal government shouldn't be trumping state's rights. Refineries, nuclear plants, abortion, property rights, and a thousand other things they shouldn't be doing at all. Republicans and democrats are horrendous at not meddling in states affairs. Neither party is worth a shit in that regard.

"ExxonMobil's of the country do NOTHING to help the people at large, nor ease our immediate problem"

And just what is it that they are supposed to do? Who's job is that? They are a business, not a social organization. Their job is to make money. You think GM is in the business to make cars? You're fooling yourself if you think they are. They are out to turn a profit. They use cars to get there. As soon as one of those companies comes out and says, "We're no longer a for profit business. We will use our recourses to help out the general community and ease problems", you can count to 10 before they collapse as a business.

Nobody should hand them anything. Nor should they be required to pay for anything that any other business isn't required to do. Singling them out because so many people have become dependant on their product is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

The Iraq war you ask? If it was all about oil as so many claimed - where is it?

[AlmostStock]

Surprise, surprise is right. This is only a surprise if you paid absolutely no attention to the actions of this administration in the past. Every self respecting environmental organization has condemned their trashing of regulations in almost every area possible. Handouts for big oil is also nothing new. It's just the same agenda and business as usual.

[tenguzero]

Careful that you include my whole sentence in your quote, Yogs. The whole sentence is:

"The last time I checked, handouts to the ExxonMobil's of the country do NOTHING to help the people at large, nor ease our immediate problem."

As in: handouts to Big Oil in the form of tax breaks, development rights, or environmental concessions do NOTHING to help the public. I don't expect the oil companies themselves to do anything for the American public, or even acknowledge their concerns -- unless you consider the occasional BP/Amaco ad talking up their "cleaner environment" programs, involving alternative fuels and such. Right. They're no better than Big Tobacco (we're all familiar with the half-assed anti-smoking ads launched in the last year or so by Philip Morris, coincidentally, around this same time they made strategic moves in respect to their manufacturing and distribution processes toward Indonesia to cash in on a new market, since ours was drying up.)

We could have shifted over to alternative fuels YEARS ago. But the very same oil companies out to make the profits that investors hold dear also stand to lose a lot of money if the public's reliance on fossil fuels drops. Why do you think Bush's recent energy bill is so skewed toward oil? Oil is NOT the future, and anyone who thinks so is providing an example of why our country is falling behind in the high-tech, biomedical, and educational fields. We're just too ass-backward to realize that the future is passing us by, and by the time we DO realize it, we'll have some major catching up to do. But then again, if there's one thing America has plenty of experience at, it's knee-jerk responses

And what's "a little bit less we have to bring in from overseas" going to save us at the pump? What could a refinery in Alaska POSSIBLY do to save us money next to how much it will cost -- not just in terms of construction and operation, but on mere principle? If we're willing to risk harming and/or sell our country's natural possessions up the river for a little more oil, what does that say about our values? I mean, I hear an awful lot of bitching about liberal-this and conservative-that and all flavors of "our country's morals are going to crap" and yet these same people seem to have no problem justifying threat or sacrifice of parts of our country originally protected for our future generations. Abortion of a pregnancy neither medical science nor religion can yet prove alive is murder -- but the destruction of countless wildlife that used to call a preserve home before it was wiped out by a refinery? The hell with 'em!

YEEHAW! Oil is OUR only answer!

Pretty sad. Oh well, as soon as we've "won the war in Iraq" then we'll have another nice ally in the Middle East -- one that just happens to have an estimated 15 percent of the world's oil supply. Of course, this whole pretty relationship is based on Iraq's NOT collapsing into a civil war over the constitution that is supposed to be its very foundation.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Careful that you include my whole sentence in your quote, Yogs. The whole sentence is:

"The last time I checked, handouts to the ExxonMobil's of the country do NOTHING to help the people at large, nor ease our immediate problem."

As in: handouts to Big Oil in the form of tax breaks, development rights, or environmental concessions do NOTHING to help the public.

Sorry if I parapharsed anything. Its not my intention to put words in your mouth. However, a tax break is not a hand out. Giving someone someone elses taxes is a handout (welfare specifically). I do agree that the oil companies should not get any special breaks but I also think they shouldn't have any special burdens added.

I don't expect the oil companies themselves to do anything for the American public, or even acknowledge their concerns -- unless you consider the occasional BP/Amaco ad talking up their "cleaner environment" programs, involving alternative fuels and such. Right. They're no better than Big Tobacco (we're all familiar with the half-assed anti-smoking ads launched in the last year or so by Philip Morris, coincidentally, around this same time they made strategic moves in respect to their manufacturing and distribution processes toward Indonesia to cash in on a new market, since ours was drying up.)

When they hold promotions like that, they're attempting to draw customers in with their approach. One can choose not to believe them or be drawn to it, but its simple marketing.

We could have shifted over to alternative fuels YEARS ago.

The old adage still holds true. Get some inverstors together, build your infrastructure, create the fuel and get the shift into motion.

But the very same oil companies out to make the profits that investors hold dear also stand to lose a lot of money if the public's reliance on fossil fuels drops.

You might not understand investors very well. Investors don't put money in a company and do everything they can to make sure that company makes profits. They put the money into companies they believe will be making profits right now. There is a reason why stocks of any given company go up and down. Its not because of the profit level, its because investor confidence that they can turn a profit.

Why do you think Bush's recent energy bill is so skewed toward oil?

Simple - our economy runs on oil. Some may not like it, but its the backbone.

Oil is NOT the future, and anyone who thinks so is providing an example of why our country is falling behind in the high-tech, biomedical, and educational fields. We're just too ass-backward to realize that the future is passing us by, and by the time we DO realize it, we'll have some major catching up to do. But then again, if there's one thing America has plenty of experience at, it's knee-jerk responses

Oil may not be the future, but its also not obsolete. There will be no massive change over to any alternative fuels. It'll take decades and just watching the hybrid sales grow is a sign that the market is dictating where things should go and that change is occuring. We'll have catching up to do? Who is not using oil? What economy is using less then they were a year ago? None. Transportation moves every economy on the planet and none of us are ass-backwards.

I also agree that there are to many knee-jerk responses. Just like when supply and demand pushes oil prices higher and the chicken littles equate that with the world running out or a conspiracy by the oil industry to gouge the customer.

And what's "a little bit less we have to bring in from overseas" going to save us at the pump? What could a refinery in Alaska POSSIBLY do to save us money next to how much it will cost -- not just in terms of construction and operation, but on mere principle?

I don't have any economic models worked out but you can be the oil companies do. They wouldn't spend billions to get the oil if they didn't think they could move it. And to move a product, it has to be affordable (based on the market) and wanted. Its their money and they believe it'll be profitable. I can tell you that not importing oil does help level costs for the simple reason supplies are no longer based on the political whim of several other countries. Many of those are not open markets (virtually all of the OPEC ones) and that plays on the price of crude futures which is a direct correlation to the price we pay at the pump.

If we're willing to risk harming and/or sell our country's natural possessions up the river for a little more oil, what does that say about our values?

In Alaska we're talking less then 1% of a ice covered ground. The oil companies would still have to meet the EPA standards to operate there and frankly what does it say that we care more about the ice then we do about keeping the economy moving (which provides the money to privide real hand-outs to the lazy)?

I mean, I hear an awful lot of bitching about liberal-this and conservative-that and all flavors of "our country's morals are going to crap" and yet these same people seem to have no problem justifying threat or sacrifice of parts of our country originally protected for our future generations.

The big difference is that some see - to use your terms - sacraficing parts of our country for future generations - as a cop out. What is being sacraficed? How many people are in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico? How many are vacationing in the Tundra of Alaska?

Abortion of a pregnancy neither medical science nor religion can yet prove alive is murder -- but the destruction of countless wildlife that used to call a preserve home before it was wiped out by a refinery? The hell with 'em!

I'm not sure if you're equating the life of an animal with the life of a human. If you are, then I pity you. If you are not then I am not sure what you are driving at. I'll save the abortion debate for a thread that addresses it, but there is no comparison between the two elements you described.

YEEHAW! Oil is OUR only answer!

Who said oil was the only answer. The truth is its the lifeblood of the economy. Artifical time lines or requirements will do nothing but hurt everyone who depends on it (namely the entire hemisphere and a few billion others on the other)

Pretty sad. Oh well, as soon as we've "won the war in Iraq" then we'll have another nice ally in the Middle East -- one that just happens to have an estimated 15 percent of the world's oil supply. Of course, this whole pretty relationship is based on Iraq's NOT collapsing into a civil war over the constitution that is supposed to be its very foundation.

Blah blah blah. Soon the war in Iraq will be over and the people there will have their own destiniy in their hand instead of a homicidal dictator. Either way, it does nothing to indicate that we shouldn't be doing oil exploration in our own country, letting the markets dictate price and letting the markets and free enterprise develop alternatives.



Not directed at you -

Its really frustrating that so many people sit back and think we should have someone else come up with alternate fuels, someone else should design and build alternate transportation, blame big oils for raising gas prices but say you cannnot increase your supply. Basically waiting for someone else to do something about it, but still using the products and doing nothing to actually make the difference they want to see.

[Cbass]

I have to side with Yogs here on most of his points. Every new bit of infrastructure and supply built is priceless on so many levels.

Getting past the fact that increased domestic production decreases the trade deficit, it also employs a great deal of people for both the construction of the infrastructure and it's operation and maintenance, and it gets the oil companies putting some of their massive profits back into the economy at the base level.

Trickle down doesn't work from the top down, it works from the bottom up.

OTOH, I think that getting some sort of price cap on oil is a very good idea, given that every aspect of the economy is energy dependent. Supply and demand is a very nice theory, but it's not absolute, when you get into variables such as collectives and cabals.

An excellent example is a local gas station one town from mine. The owner refuses to raise gas prices over a certain price, and accordingly everyone else has to keep prices lower to compete. Gas is about 10 cents a liter cheaper in that town than in mine.

Conversely, when the major competitors form a consortium as they have in the oil business, they can charge whatever the hell they want, especially when they deal with franchised distributors who are bound by contract to deal exclusively with one supplier. The distributors pass the buck on to the consumer, who is forced to pay the price out of necessity. It's very nice to put forth quaint ideology such as "well it's their own fault for being energy dependent", but the reality is, everything on this continent moves by truck, train or plane, and they all run on petroleum. Everything is manufactured using energy from oil, meaning as the price of oil goes up, the price of manufacturing goes up. Through this price fixing, the oil companies are bleeding everyone at every level of business dry, and there is only so much they can milk us for.

[tenguzero]

No, I'm not comparing (what may or may not be, depending on one's stance) a sentient human life with that of an animal's. What I AM comparing, is the rational behind the thing -- if someone can feel it should be our responsibility to look out for a helpless future birth, how can they NOT feel the same for a forrest full of life that is helpless to human might? What dictates one species right to life over another? Location on the food or intelligence chain?

But back to the topic:

As far as drilling in Alaska goes, everyone's got a viewpoint one way or another. Here is an excellent resource for seeing both sides. I for one do NOT support the ANWR plans, for reasons more numerous than just the ones I've posted here. I'm not one who likes to get tangled up in red tape, political interests, deficit statistics, or any of the other aspects of the economy and political field of today. Though I know many of these things are important in some way or another, I'm still unconvinced as to WHY we're not already into alternative fuels to a greater degree. Countless scientific endeavors, research programs, interest groups, and concerned individuals have been on the alternative fuel wagon for YEARS. We have the still-experimentals: nuclear (fusion), geothermal and the like. We have the PROVEN alternative fuels: solar, wind, ethanol, hydrogen, ocean activity, etc. We have the questionable alternatives: natural gas, diesel, hydroelectric, nuclear (fission.)

And then there's oil and coal.

You're definately right about every economy relying on oil, Yogs. But WHY is it so pervasive? Because that's what the market dictates? You said yourself that stocks in companies are always going up and down -- hence the market is always going up and down. The market is, by its very nature, an incredibly fickle creature. I feel it's a mistake to let the market control the development and implementation of something as important as alternative fuels because of that very reason. Why do people pay more for good investors? Because these are the people who watch the trends and attempt to make moves retroactively -- BEFORE the stock goes south. However, a large percentage of the world markets AREN'T trolled by savvy investors, that's why so many people lose so much to stock fraud, failed business ventures, and bursting bubbles: the market is a Bear nearly as often as it is a Bull. Fortunes are made and lost in the stock market. And this is the entity we are to trust the future of ENERGY to? True, we don't really know for sure that alternative fuels are potentially right around the corner, but then again, China and India have been surprising us at every corner with their growth. The markets right now are telling us oil is still vitally important, but even the brightest minds on the forefront of the continued energy progression are at odds as to how long oil really has. We may not HAVE decades to watch things. Maybe I'm just jumping the gun on all this, but this is something we can't afford NOT to take proactive measures on.

Money spent on refineries and drilling is money ill spent. And why should they even be interested in drilling in Alaska? I keep hearing that we need more refineries to convert the oil, not drill more. If the funding in Bush's latest energy bill were reversed (like it should be) alternative fuels would take precident over fossil fuels. And you know what? There's no reason prices SHOULDN'T drop back down to near the levels they were at before the Iraq fiasco, the only variables being oil company greed (which I can guarantee you will be disguised as "new concern over instability") and Chinese growth.

If a serious, concerted effort were put into the alternative fuel programs instead of oil, the market would see these alternatives a lot quicker. Hybrids are a great start, and a wonderful stepping stone away from oil demand, but the process can only be complete when we have somewhere solid to step to. Not only to ween us off of oil, but to make a bold statement: If the most energy-hungry and oil dependent nation in the world can turn their back on one of their most demanding (and flawed) pillars of industry and commerce, and adopt sweeping reforms and programs to usher in a newer, cleaner, cheaper, domestic, RENEWABLE pillar, anyone can.

[YogsVR4]

Which leaves the arguement about full circle. If there is money to be made in alternative fuels and a vast number of people want them, then why hasn't it happened? Is it only people with zero dollars that want alternate fuels? Soros, Gates, Turner just to name a few billionaires, seem to be on the alternate fuel bandwagon. Why hasn't someone organized their billions (their net worth is higher then all but a few oil companies) and made it happen?

Though we may lament that we aren't were we think we should be, it should not be used to cripple businesses or harm consumers to try and make up for it.

[AlmostStock]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Though we may lament that we aren't were we think we should be, it should not be used to cripple businesses or harm consumers to try and make up for it.

Right. We should just let the market take it's course. Then when oil is really expensive (it will happen) and society is still not prepared, businesses will be crippled and consumers harmed even more. The fact is we're failing to address the inevitable until it will be too late to adjust without major lifestyle changes. It doesn't seem prudent in the long run.

[Cbass]

Want to know just how profitable it is? You can mix diesel fuel half and half with vegetable oil and run a vehicle on that with no modifications. Any idea how much a trucking company can save if they're picking up used cooking oil for free from resteraunts and running their trucks on it? Fuel costs are a huge part of the bottom line in that particular industry.

Running off of the waste of the food industry works great for individual users here and there, but it's not nearly enough to supply anything on an industrial scale.

With biodiesel as an alternative, it's financially risky. The price of vegetable oil fluctuates with supply and demand, and there are currently people with a vested interest in making those prices as high as possible, for better profits. This makes biodiesel seem less profitable. Current estimates put commercial biodiesel at roughly $2 USD a gallon, before distribution, taxation, and profits.

The thing is that if a few farming conglomerates could be guaranteed market for vegetable oil producing crops like soy and canola, it would drive down the cost of vegetable oil significantly. Everyone involved could stand to make a killing off of it, and IMO it's only a matter of time before people start doing it. The higher oil prices get, the more profitable vegetable oil sourced diesel will become.

[YogsVR4]

From what I recall, another obsticle with vegtable oil as an alternative is the quantity of vegtibles to make the oil. Though I haven't done a search to get where I heard this, but to use bio diesel as an alternative for all the trucks on the road would require the entire vegtable crop of the US each year. If that is a true statement, it could be used to ease dependance, but it won't do as a single alternative. It all helps though, so I wouldn't mind seeing it at all.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Which leaves the arguement about full circle. If there is money to be made in alternative fuels and a vast number of people want them, then why hasn't it happened?

Because oil companies won't let it happen. It's a well known fact that every attempt in history in the U.S. to introduce a fuel as an alternative to gasoline has been trumped by oil companies.
The alcohol fuel industry which has threatened the gasoline industry many times throughout history in the U.S. was destroyed each time by the oil companies - even when it had politcal backing and support from the government. Presdient Theodore Roosevelt supported the alcohol fuel industry, Henry Ford supported the alcohol industry. Lobbying, whining, and threats from oil companies generally ended all progress. Misseducation of the public by the oil companies was also common. When gas stations were ready to sell gasoline/alcohol mixtures (long before it became legally mandated in some states) a "representative" from the oil company would show up and do a "demonstration" for the station owner - he washed out a beaker, then filled it partly with gasoline, and partly with alcohol, he shook it up and then showed the station owner that alcohol and gasoline wouldn't mix with each other.
The trick - when he washed the beaker he didn't dry it out - the remaining drops of water caused the alcohol and gasoline to seperate.
Pretty honest of them huh?
There is also this rediculous notion that alcohol costs more than gas to make, which is totally without base. When you can build a cracking plant for the same price as building a still - tell me.
It's not that there is no such thing as a profitable, useful, alternative fuel - it's just that oil already has an existing infrastructure, and already has all the support. Get rid of the unfair tax against non petroleum fuels for road use, and we'll be making progress.
Get the government to support the widespread production and distribution of alternative fuels (as was the case in Brazil) and the oil companies' monopoly will be crushed.
Get automobile companies to build cars that can run on a variety of fuels (U.S. companies sell "flex fuel" vehicles to Brazil and other countries, but do not make them available to the American public) and we'll have made some progress.

Read this to learn a little about the history of alcohol fuel in the U.S.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/pap...tml#opposition

[Cbass]

The reality has always been that although alternative fuels are appealing in concept, the hard economics of it dictate oil as the most cost effective fuel. For all our feelgood notions about ecologically friendly fuels like alcohol and biodiesel, the unit cost is always significantly higher than petroleum fuels.

This is true for a number of reasons. We already have established oil refineries and distribution networks. We'd have to build new industrial distilleries to supply enough alcohol to fuel vehicles on a national/international scale.

Vegetable source is getting very appealing. The unit cost of vegetable oil could be driven down by a number means. Currently there are giant farming conglomerates that are being heavily subsidized to grow wheat that there is no market for. If they were to convert to soy crops, especially genetically modified soy crops for producing oil, the unit cost of the oil would be lower than the unit cost of diesel fuel, by FAR. Straight filtered veggie oil can be blended with convential diesel fuel up to 50% and run without ANY conversion. It produces more energy than petroleum diesel as well, and has cleaner burning emissions. This should be very appealing to certain petrochemical interests, and I think the government would do very well to initiate incentives towards this.

Biodiesel is another story, biodiesel has to be refined, which requires additional infrastructure to be built, which requires a major cash outlay.

Electric cars are unfeasable to the point of being absurd. Forget about that one, hybrids are as far as that boat goes.

[tenguzero]

I truly feel that hydrogen will be the first real fully alternative fuel, since it's just a matter of time until the batteries and other components that are still rather unwieldy become manageable. Detractors like to point out the fact that hydrogen production still requires energy garnered from some source, and assume it will be petroleum-based, but this, I think, is where the whole biodiesel/corn/alcohol fuels will come into play. One of them will likely emerge as the source of choice, and then it can be applied to the hydrogen production process. This way, instead of tens of millions of vehicles operating off a refined fuel, it will instead be necessary for only the hydrogen stations themselves to have the conversion-to-hydrogen units installed. The other advantage to this, is that different parts of the country could potentially utilize the fuel most readily/locally available to them (corn, biodiesel, alcohol, etc.) to power the hydrogen conversion units at the stations.

An ambitious vision? Perhaps, but it's not like there aren't already thousands of gas stations across the country potentially able to be fitted for hydrogen supply with little adjustment to the structures themselves beyond the addition of new dispensers. I just can't understand why funds are being earmarked for oil ventures that are really NOT the future, and won't serve to lower our foreign dependency a great deal -- sure, every little bit that we CAN is all well and good, but the serious pursuit of alternative fuels is what we SHOULD be shooting for, since that has the potential to effectively kill most, if not all of our dependency right away. Obviously at that point, what we will still need could easily be taken care of domestically.